40 goals in 26 games is not very good. The amount that we score relative to the chances we create is not very good. To try and dress it up as a positive is just silly, frankly.
Why... For calling you up on your nonsense again? Do you think 26% is an impressive stat then or not? Yes or no
Oh I completely agree we don't score nearly enough for the chances we create. Last I checked we were top for chances created and yet our conversion rate is nowhere near the top. We aren't nearly clinical enough in front of goal. I wasn't disagreeing with that at all
Nope just for being a **** with the way you respond to people lol Why would I now be drawn back into a discussion when your so snide with your replies?
To be fair I don't think anyone can really disagree with it because, as you say, the statistics show that it's a fact On a serious note though, it is a massive problem because there are going to be games when we're not going to be at our best (which has been the case for a while) and in those games we need to make sure that we can finish in front of goal. Southampton being a prime example (unbelievable we couldn't win that). Even if opposition goalkeepers don't keep clean sheets, by conceding even 1 or 2 goals (which most of our victories seem to be won by) keeps the opposition in with a chance of getting something from the game and we still struggle to kill them off.
Do reply, don't reply... Either way you have no point to stand on. All we can do is wait to see if you'll admit you were wrong or not.
It sometimes makes me wish we still had podolski, for all his flaws he could finish if given the opportunity. We have several players who can score goals but we seem so wasteful at times, particularly when we are already winning games. Not entirely sure how the problem should be approached though in terms of what will help sort it? Maybe more focus on finishing in training is the answer?
All I've said is that you excuse mediocrity. How is that snide? You've not tried to dispute that, just simply called me a ****. Why can't you dispute it? By insulting me that suggests you are offended by the insinuation you excuse mediocrity. Which means you either think (1) that 26% is not mediocre and actually quite good, or actually (2) that you don't find 26% acceptable really and youre not happy with it. Your previous comments suggest you think 26% is actually quite good so I'll assume the former. Is that true? Or is insults and avoidance tactics all you have?
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your going to respond nicely! I called you snide because the tone of your responses is snide. You posted a load of stats (which in my response to you I said I appreciated, I love a stat) but when I checked them I missed the Chelsea game, as soon as you pointed it out I accepted I had made a mistake. Despite whilst pointing it out you being sarcastic (the comment about counting being difficult), before shrugging off my opinion because "we all know you excuse mediocrity" which was a personal comment rather than addressing the point that was being discussed. I called you a **** because whenever you respond to me you act like a ****! Your comments all come across like your looking down your nose at the person your responding to, whether you mean to come across that way or not you always appear to be looking for an argument. Which is why I just called you a **** and laughed rather than getting drawn in (though now I appear to have been drawn in lol). The 26% stat isn't a particularly good one, having checked against Spurs it's about the same (a handful of games - haven't checked the exact %). Could be better, failing to score against Hull and Southampton for example are games we should have scored in. The Liverpool game we did score in but it was disallowed and the Chelsea game was poor but it's also a fixture we usually don't score in. However when you look at when these games occurred, you'd have to agree it isn't very often. Two of the games came in our first 3 fixtures of the season, in the following 7 months it's only happened 3 times, two of those were in a row. So it doesn't happen often. If those same games we failed to score had happened once a month throughout the season you could argue it is a regular occurance, but when there are several months worth of fixtures in between it happening, I'd say that isn't very often.
I've already stated the spurs figures for raw goals scored and conceded. They're better than ours. They also got a no scoring rate of 22%. Anyway, it's a simple yes or no answer... Do you think 26% is a good stat or mediocre stat for our football club?
It wants you to answer a simple yes/no question so I'll help you out... Is cini65 a ****? 1. Yes 2. No Happy to help
How do we know we have several players who can score goals if they turn down so many opportunities to shoot as they do now?Either they are scared to take responsibility or they want to try to score the 'perfect' goal. Our conversion record is poor because the players, for unfathomable reasons, seem to lack confidence at the killer point. Walcott and, to a lesser extent, Campbell were guilty of this. It even seemed to inflict Sanchez in the latter stages.
