|
Post by baconburger on Sept 9, 2023 11:14:39 GMT
Given the choice I'd start the player I know can and will score at this level. The other forwards will get chances to stake a claim for the shirt from the bench. It's common sense really and in no way says that some or all of the others won't surpass him. Of his last performance it wasn't anything to write home about but he was still our most likely source of a goal in that game. At the moment we're playing a front 3, Vidigal is injured I'd certainly prefer to have one player in there that has scored goals at this level. I've no idea what his (AN's) plans are going forward. He seems to have signed a number of players who people say their best position is AM/10 but they've also featured as wide forwards. Will he move to 4231 and play one of them in that position I've haven't got a clue. Despite scoring a 4 & a 6 we don't look like a team with a lot of goals in us, proven by the all to often occurrence of Stoke 0 (3 times out of 5 already this season) A "proven" goalscorer is one who is going to get you 15+ in a season. Campbell hasn't even got into double figures - if anything his proven he isn't up to being our main source of goals. The only reason to stick with Campbell is the hope that he will finally live up to his early promise - there is no actual evidence to stake his claim as an automatic starter. It's just wishful thinking. A proven goal scorer at this level is someone who is proven to score goals at this level not some arbitrary requirement that you have decided upon. Nobody is claiming he should be an automatic starter just that he should start until somebody else looks like they will replace the goals that he will most likely score if played. As yet apart from Vidigal non of them have. Wishful thinking is imagining they have.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Sept 9, 2023 11:18:21 GMT
It will if he is wanting stupid money and a long contract.His current malaise isn't conjusive to either. Pretty sure he isn’t in a malaise. He is our only/most likely source of goals bar Vidigal. Some Stoke fans don’t like him, we’ve heard it a million times before. Play Leris he runs about a lot, play Wesley he’s really strong, play Mmaee he looks even more lethargic than Campbell but he’s just arrived from Xanadu. So you want a player in your side who blows out of his arse after a short sprint,who can’t or won’t compete for the ball,and doesn’t run off the ball,on the off chance he might get you a goal now and again it’s your prerogative.I and many others don’t.He may have been offered a contract,he may not have been. However his contract demands I would have thought wouldn’t match his performance levels as they are.If he continues as he at the moment I will be glad to see him gone.If he’s not in a malaise then what do you attribute his appalling fitness levels too?
|
|
|
Post by gaznandi on Sept 9, 2023 11:26:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Sept 9, 2023 11:32:07 GMT
Pretty sure he isn’t in a malaise. He is our only/most likely source of goals bar Vidigal. Some Stoke fans don’t like him, we’ve heard it a million times before. Play Leris he runs about a lot, play Wesley he’s really strong, play Mmaee he looks even more lethargic than Campbell but he’s just arrived from Xanadu. So you want a player in your side who blows out of his arse after a short sprint,who can’t or won’t compete for the ball,and doesn’t run off the ball,on the off chance he might get you a goal now and again it’s your prerogative.I and many others don’t.He may have been offered a contract,he may not have been. However his contract demands I would have thought wouldn’t match his performance levels as they are.If he continues as he at the moment I will be glad to see him gone.If he’s not in a malaise then what do you attribute his appalling fitness levels too? At the end of the day it doesn’t matter who you or I want in the team. There are just as many who think Campbell is a good player and likely source of much needed goals as those who obviously really find something objectionable about him like you. To phrase it in terms of our recent history for every Brownite there’s a Campbellite.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 9, 2023 17:15:01 GMT
A "proven" goalscorer is one who is going to get you 15+ in a season. Campbell hasn't even got into double figures - if anything his proven he isn't up to being our main source of goals. The only reason to stick with Campbell is the hope that he will finally live up to his early promise - there is no actual evidence to stake his claim as an automatic starter. It's just wishful thinking. A proven goal scorer at this level is someone who is proven to score goals at this level not some arbitrary requirement that you have decided upon. Nobody is claiming he should be an automatic starter just that he should start until somebody else looks like they will replace the goals that he will most likely score if played. As yet apart from Vidigal non of them have. Wishful thinking is imagining they have. "Proven goalscorer" is a phrase that people use to describe players who have scored a good number of goals in a season - usually on a regular basis. 15 may be an arbitrary number but it's nearer to what you would expect of a "proven goalscorer' than 9 - which is no where near enough. You have to have a number in mind otherwise anyone who has scored a goal is a proven goalscorer at the level they scored. On that basis Begovich is a proven goalscorer at the Premiership level. Gayle is a proven goalscorer at this level (although past his best). Campbell isn't. The forwards we have brought on have to demonstrate they can match Campbell's goal output and/or contribute more to others scoring. Campbells position on the starting 11 is up for grabs. He may well earn it but his record to date doesn't make him a shoe in.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 9, 2023 19:19:44 GMT
Jared describes Neil as a master tactician but I've seen little evidence of this and has been out thought tactically in most games apart from Rotherham so far this season.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 9, 2023 19:21:58 GMT
Jared describes Neil as a master tactician but I've seen little evidence of this and has been out thought tactically in most games apart from Rotherham so far this season. Twice And Albion And Watford 5 4 wins 3 defeats It's not 'most' is it?
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Sept 9, 2023 19:29:43 GMT
A proven goal scorer at this level is someone who is proven to score goals at this level not some arbitrary requirement that you have decided upon. Nobody is claiming he should be an automatic starter just that he should start until somebody else looks like they will replace the goals that he will most likely score if played. As yet apart from Vidigal non of them have. Wishful thinking is imagining they have. "Proven goalscorer" is a phrase that people use to describe players who have scored a good number of goals in a season - usually on a regular basis. 15 may be an arbitrary number but it's nearer to what you would expect of a "proven goalscorer' than 9 - which is no where near enough. You have to have a number in mind otherwise anyone who has scored a goal is a proven goalscorer at the level they scored. On that basis Begovich is a proven goalscorer at the Premiership level. Gayle is a proven goalscorer at this level (although past his best). Campbell isn't. The forwards we have brought on have to demonstrate they can match Campbell's goal output and/or contribute more to others scoring. Campbells position on the starting 11 is up for grabs. He may well earn it but his record to date doesn't make him a shoe in. Not really it’s just you trying to dictate your interpretation of a pretty loose terminology. A proven goal scorer at any level will have scored goals at that level in multiple seasons. You then go on to agree with me that the players we’ve bought in who are unproven at this level need to prove they can out produce Campbell. I’m perfectly happy for them do do so I’m not named Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 9, 2023 19:30:20 GMT
Jared describes Neil as a master tactician but I've seen little evidence of this and has been out thought tactically in most games apart from Rotherham so far this season. Twice And Albion And Watford 5 4 wins 3 defeats It's not 'most' is it? Ahh yes the 5 at the back borefest against Watford where we he got it wrong and we were extremely lucky to get the 3 points. So I'll give you he gets his tactics right 50% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 9, 2023 19:34:36 GMT
Twice And Albion And Watford 5 4 wins 3 defeats It's not 'most' is it? Ahh yes the 4 at the back borefest against Watford where we he got it wrong and we were extremely lucky to get the 3 points. So I'll give you he gets his tactics right 50% of the time. He played 5 at the back which as the Watford manager said took his team by surprise tactical and entertainment are not the same thing
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 9, 2023 19:35:18 GMT
Twice And Albion And Watford 5 4 wins 3 defeats It's not 'most' is it? Ahh yes the 4 at the back borefest against Watford where we he got it wrong and we were extremely lucky to get the 3 points. So I'll give you he gets his tactics right 50% of the time. He played 5 at the back which as the Watford manager said took his team by surprise tactical and entertainment are not the same thing
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Sept 9, 2023 19:38:48 GMT
Ahh yes the 4 at the back borefest against Watford where we he got it wrong and we were extremely lucky to get the 3 points. So I'll give you he gets his tactics right 50% of the time. He played 5 at the back which as the Watford manager said took his team by surprise tactical and entertainment are not the same thing Agree but then abandoned it v Preston when it was equally as suited to the opposition
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 9, 2023 19:41:09 GMT
Ahh yes the 4 at the back borefest against Watford where we he got it wrong and we were extremely lucky to get the 3 points. So I'll give you he gets his tactics right 50% of the time. He played 5 at the back which as the Watford manager said took his team by surprise tactical and entertainment are not the same thing Fat fingers meant 5 at the back.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 9, 2023 19:45:14 GMT
He played 5 at the back which as the Watford manager said took his team by surprise tactical and entertainment are not the same thing Fat fingers meant 5 at the back. It was a re boring game but he did get one over the opposition with actual tactics Not saying it's all amazing just attacking hyperbole
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Sept 9, 2023 20:18:57 GMT
5 at the back allowed us to compete with a very physical Watford like it or not it’s his bedt chance of surviving the autumn
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 10, 2023 10:53:14 GMT
Jared describes Neil as a master tactician but I've seen little evidence of this and has been out thought tactically in most games apart from Rotherham so far this season. It's because Rotherham was bad enough.
|
|
|
Post by BuzzB on Sept 10, 2023 12:50:04 GMT
This is one player I am looking forward to watching
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 10, 2023 16:00:52 GMT
"Proven goalscorer" is a phrase that people use to describe players who have scored a good number of goals in a season - usually on a regular basis. 15 may be an arbitrary number but it's nearer to what you would expect of a "proven goalscorer' than 9 - which is no where near enough. You have to have a number in mind otherwise anyone who has scored a goal is a proven goalscorer at the level they scored. On that basis Begovich is a proven goalscorer at the Premiership level. Gayle is a proven goalscorer at this level (although past his best). Campbell isn't. The forwards we have brought on have to demonstrate they can match Campbell's goal output and/or contribute more to others scoring. Campbells position on the starting 11 is up for grabs. He may well earn it but his record to date doesn't make him a shoe in. Not really it’s just you trying to dictate your interpretation of a pretty loose terminology. A proven goal scorer at any level will have scored goals at that level in multiple seasons. You then go on to agree with me that the players we’ve bought in who are unproven at this level need to prove they can out produce Campbell. I’m perfectly happy for them do do so I’m not named Kevin. I'm not dictating anything, it's you who are trying to define "proven goalscorer" to mean something the majority of people wouldn't recognise. If I said we need player X who has never got into double figures on the grounds he is a "proven goalscorer" I'd (rightly) get ripped to pieces on here. Of course the new lads have got to do better than Campbell to get into the starting 11 ( and vice versa) but let's face it, the bar isn't very high.
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Sept 10, 2023 16:21:21 GMT
Yes, thus far, Alex Neil has talked a good game, but tactically in game, not the greatest. He obviously has something, getting Norwich & Sunderland promoted, but so far at Stoke, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Sept 10, 2023 16:44:39 GMT
Not really it’s just you trying to dictate your interpretation of a pretty loose terminology. A proven goal scorer at any level will have scored goals at that level in multiple seasons. You then go on to agree with me that the players we’ve bought in who are unproven at this level need to prove they can out produce Campbell. I’m perfectly happy for them do do so I’m not named Kevin. I'm not dictating anything, it's you who are trying to define "proven goalscorer" to mean something the majority of people wouldn't recognise. If I said we need player X who has never got into double figures on the grounds he is a "proven goalscorer" I'd (rightly) get ripped to pieces on here. Of course the new lads have got to do better than Campbell to get into the starting 11 ( and vice versa) but let's face it, the bar isn't very high. Sorry I disagree what you describe is what I’d refer to as a prolific goal scorer. By your definition a player could score 9or10 a season for 5 consecutive seasons and you still wouldn’t describe him as a proven goal scorer which is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 12, 2023 17:27:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 13, 2023 16:42:29 GMT
I'm not dictating anything, it's you who are trying to define "proven goalscorer" to mean something the majority of people wouldn't recognise. If I said we need player X who has never got into double figures on the grounds he is a "proven goalscorer" I'd (rightly) get ripped to pieces on here. Of course the new lads have got to do better than Campbell to get into the starting 11 ( and vice versa) but let's face it, the bar isn't very high. Sorry I disagree what you describe is what I’d refer to as a prolific goal scorer. By your definition a player could score 9or10 a season for 5 consecutive seasons and you still wouldn’t describe him as a proven goal scorer which is ridiculous. It's dependent on the position. 9 goals in a season is good for a midfielder or winger but it's nowhere near good enough for a striker or inside forward. Campbell plays as an inside forward, not a winger and I'd expect more than 9 on a regular basis for someone playing in that position to be considered "proven". And Campbell doesn't qualify as proven goalscorer on this basis anywhere - he hasn't scored 9 in 5 consecutive seasons, to date he's done it twice and only once in the last three. He has potential but to date he just hasn't fulfilled it. I don't have a problem with Campbell being picked in the starting 11 providing he earns it, I just don't agree he is an automatic first choice because he doesn't merit it on his actual contribution to date and based on his performance last time out he should be dropped.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Sept 14, 2023 7:58:39 GMT
Sorry I disagree what you describe is what I’d refer to as a prolific goal scorer. By your definition a player could score 9or10 a season for 5 consecutive seasons and you still wouldn’t describe him as a proven goal scorer which is ridiculous. It's dependent on the position. 9 goals in a season is good for a midfielder or winger but it's nowhere near good enough for a striker or inside forward. Campbell plays as an inside forward, not a winger and I'd expect more than 9 on a regular basis for someone playing in that position to be considered "proven". And Campbell doesn't qualify as proven goalscorer on this basis anywhere - he hasn't scored 9 in 5 consecutive seasons, to date he's done it twice and only once in the last three. He has potential but to date he just hasn't fulfilled it. I don't have a problem with Campbell being picked in the starting 11 providing he earns it, I just don't agree he is an automatic first choice because he doesn't merit it on his actual contribution to date and based on his performance last time out he should be dropped. What utter tosh. Lots of forwards whilst never being prolific have been proven goal scorers. Indeed the majority of forwards at any given level won’t hit double figures in any given season. Happy for Campbell to be dropped for a player more likely to score and that’s the crux of it we probably don’t have anybody if we do they certainly haven’t revealed themselves as yet. I certainly don’t want to see a forward line in which two of the three players who are unlikely to score goals.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 14, 2023 8:44:25 GMT
It's dependent on the position. 9 goals in a season is good for a midfielder or winger but it's nowhere near good enough for a striker or inside forward. Campbell plays as an inside forward, not a winger and I'd expect more than 9 on a regular basis for someone playing in that position to be considered "proven". And Campbell doesn't qualify as proven goalscorer on this basis anywhere - he hasn't scored 9 in 5 consecutive seasons, to date he's done it twice and only once in the last three. He has potential but to date he just hasn't fulfilled it. I don't have a problem with Campbell being picked in the starting 11 providing he earns it, I just don't agree he is an automatic first choice because he doesn't merit it on his actual contribution to date and based on his performance last time out he should be dropped. What utter tosh. Lots of forwards whilst never being prolific have been proven goal scorers. Indeed the majority of forwards at any given level won’t hit double figures in any given season. Happy for Campbell to be dropped for a player more likely to score and that’s the crux of it we probably don’t have anybody if we do they certainly haven’t revealed themselves as yet. I certainly don’t want to see a forward line in which two of the three players who are unlikely to score goals. Neither of us know for certain whether the forwards we have are capable of scoring more goals than Campbell - in fact no one knows because they haven't played enough games to decide one way or the other. Just playing Campbell because he happens to have had enough time on the pitch to show what he can do (which for a striker isn't that good) isn't a good reason to make him an automatic starter. The fact is we really need 2 or 3 strikers getting into double figures in order to make a serious promotion push and to date Campbell hasn't proved he's one of those players and his contribution outside of his goals isn't good enough to justify a place either. The strikers we have brought in were brought in with that in mind so either Campbell ups his game or he gets squeezed out to give others time to stake their claim. He might step up or the others may prove to be duds but either way Campbell hasn't done enough to be considered an automatic starter. You have every right to want Campbell in your starting 11 because you like him as a player. However your rationale for him being an automatic starter doesn't bear scrutiny and there is no reason why anyone should accept your opinion as being backed up with sound reasoning because it isn't. You're just playing favourites.
|
|
|
Post by svengaliinplatforms on Sept 14, 2023 9:09:48 GMT
I posted some stats a season or two ago when this 'we need a 25-goal man' subject was being discussed then. I used Watford as the example of a side that had been promoted, having scored a decent amount of goals, and their top 5 or 6 scorers list read something like 14, 10, 8, 6, 5 or whatever - in other words, players chipping in, no-one ripping up trees. EDIT - it's here amp.sportsmole.co.uk/football/watford/2020-21/top-scorers.html13, 9, 7, 5, 4....with 63 overall goals scored, but helpfully, only 30 conceded.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Sept 14, 2023 9:13:44 GMT
What utter tosh. Lots of forwards whilst never being prolific have been proven goal scorers. Indeed the majority of forwards at any given level won’t hit double figures in any given season. Happy for Campbell to be dropped for a player more likely to score and that’s the crux of it we probably don’t have anybody if we do they certainly haven’t revealed themselves as yet. I certainly don’t want to see a forward line in which two of the three players who are unlikely to score goals. Neither of us know for certain whether the forwards we have are capable of scoring more goals than Campbell - in fact no one knows because they haven't played enough games to decide one way or the other. Just playing Campbell because he happens to have had enough time on the pitch to show what he can do (which for a striker isn't that good) isn't a good reason to make him an automatic starter. The fact is we really need 2 or 3 strikers getting into double figures in order to make a serious promotion push and to date Campbell hasn't proved he's one of those players and his contribution outside of his goals isn't good enough to justify a place either. The strikers we have brought in were brought in with that in mind so either Campbell ups his game or he gets squeezed out to give others time to stake their claim. He might step up or the others may prove to be duds but either way Campbell hasn't done enough to be considered an automatic starter. You have every right to want Campbell in your starting 11 because you like him as a player. However your rationale for him being an automatic starter doesn't bear scrutiny and there is no reason why anyone should accept your opinion as being backed up with sound reasoning because it isn't. You're just playing favourites. Sorry but your idea that I want Campbell in the team because I like him is nonsense. I don’t think Stoke score enough goals and particularly think Stoke 0 is a far far too common event. In exchange for Stoke scoring more I’d gladly never clap eyes on Campbell ever again. Where I differ is the fact that I think you play Campbell until one or more of the others make their case in the chances they get rather than saying Campbell is not good enough so let’s give someone else a go. A team that doesn’t score enough goals dropping a known goal scorer to accommodate a player who hasn’t yet shown any indication they will score at this level is bananas. All these players will get chances it’s upto them to grab the shirt when they get their chance. I like Hoever too but playing a wide forward in front of him who doesn’t produce output is crackers it will produce a net deficit in output from those two positions combined 9 times out of 10. In the currently favoured formation of 433 we simply field far too few players from whom regular output can be expected. If we are going to continue with it we need goals across the front three and any defensive contribution from them to be a bonus not the other way around. He could of course tweak the shape and get players with more output into the midfield 3 but that’s not something we’ve seen from him as yet. We already know Laurent doesn’t provide output regularly and Johnson doesn’t look like he will either. He’s signed several players who might but will he use them there or just keep swapping personnel in the front 3 and hoping something will change. I like that under him we’ve seen our ability to score plentiful goals in a game boosted for me that’s been a major surprise but Stoke 0 is stubbornly persistent.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 14, 2023 9:39:46 GMT
I posted some stats a season or two ago when this 'we need a 25-goal man' subject was being discussed then. I used Watford as the example of a side that had been promoted, having scored a decent amount of goals, and their top 5 or 6 scorers list read something like 14, 10, 8, 6, 5 or whatever - in other words, players chipping in, no-one ripping up trees. EDIT - it's here amp.sportsmole.co.uk/football/watford/2020-21/top-scorers.html13, 9, 7, 5, 4....with 63 overall goals scored, but helpfully, only 30 conceded. In lots of ways this is preferable to having a thirty goal striker. If a team rely on one man to score their goals what happens when he gets a cruciate or achliles injury in September. There have also been strikers who while not prolific themselves have helped their team score goals. Would Fuller have scored as many without Sidibe? Emile Heskey is the one that immediately springs to mind and I don't think Geoff Hurst was more than 1 in 3 but it doesn't matter if players around them are scoring. The problem with Campbell is that I'm not sure what else he brings to the team if he's not scoring. He's very predictable playing wide - teams know to stop him cutting in - and if forced to the line he can't cross. I have hopes that Saed may be one who can, like Vidigal, be unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 14, 2023 12:01:45 GMT
Hopefully not another Vrancic 😂
If his attitude is nailed on then he could be very good for us.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 14, 2023 12:29:30 GMT
Will be interesting to see how he gets on when he gets a bit of game time, certainly an interesting proposition that must have had something about him at one stage. According to the celtic forums they seem to suggest he had a bit of an ego and attitude problem and seem happy to see the back of him. www.talkceltic.net/forums/threads/sead-haksabanovic.154791/page-78Hopefully with a bit of discipline he can get his career back on track here. And with it being a loan at least its no major loss of it all goes wrong.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 14, 2023 12:37:23 GMT
Will be interesting to see how he gets on when he gets a bit of game time, certainly an interesting proposition that must have had something about him at one stage. According to the celtic forums they seem to suggest he had a bit of an ego and attitude problem and seem happy to see the back of him. www.talkceltic.net/forums/threads/sead-haksabanovic.154791/page-78Hopefully with a bit of discipline he can get his career back on track here. And with it being a loan at least its no major loss of it all goes wrong. So did Arnoutovic. It's not always a bad thing.
|
|