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?
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
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.
2 less than Wilson in 5 more games, know who I'd rather have.
Both ?
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 you'd rather have not had Clarke - pure genius.
Yet again a 2+2 =5 comment
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.
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
How do you ever manage to get any work done in your over 100k a year unskilled job?
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.
I don't need to. I have staff paid a lot less than me who do it all for me.
Then why the hell are we arguing????
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
What game did we draw 1-1 in the cup without a striker starting?
Hartlepool first match, Moussa played as a lone striker.
The game in which Baker scored for us?...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?