The Summer clearout / Coming in thread. Updated 27/8

[Snowball]

No snowball. It was opinion which acknowledged that no one can know exactly what would have happened, only talk in probabilities based on their reading of the situation and opinion. But it is clear where I'm leaning and what I think was more likely.

I'm not going to say anything definite would have happened, I don't have access to the parrallel dimensions of "what if" to prove anything. In the "what if" game you can easily add other things, like "what if" Gylfi broke his leg in game 5, "what if" McDermott died in a car crash, blah blah blah.

So you had no idea, you mean...

[Snowball]

Table says we scored 77 goals though.

2010-11 first

77 v 68 Goals in 46-46 Games League. GD 2010-11 +21 better
08 v 15 Goals in 06-08 Games FA & League Cup
05 v 00 Goals in 03-00 Games Play Offs


90 Goals in 55 Games 2010-11
83 Goals in 54 Games 2009-10

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

all of this is re the goals in the league games though, which may have or may not have been better, not play -off or cup games, you dont get points in the league from goals in cup games to my knowledge. However i do not expect you to acknowledge that this is the point being made.

[Snowball]

IN LEAGUE games, JUST league games, we scored NINE extra goals and conceded 7 goals less.

But, magically we were going to BETTER than that?

So with Gylfi (drop Hunt, presumably) we were going to have a GD
improvement on a GD improvement of 16. Pretty impressive, that
would have been.

[SCIAG]

IN LEAGUE games, JUST league games, we scored NINE extra goals and conceded 7 goals less.

But, magically we were going to BETTER than that?

So with Gylfi (drop Hunt, presumably) we were going to have a GD
improvement on a GD improvement of 16. Pretty impressive, that
would have been.

[Ian Royal]

Snowball appears to be falling into the trap of the argument from personal incredulity.

[Wimb]

People are still trying to get this man to concede an inch of ground on his stats based arguments?

I think I've made more progress with this flying swine I've been trying to engineer.

[BR2]

Has the club come out yet with the usual "We are delighted to announce that we have given HRK a new contract which shows the club's desire to keep players of International standing here.............................and furthermore shows that we are committed to an early return to the Premier League..........................." ?
Am I one of the few underwhelmed by this?

At the end of last season he had a couple of games where he had a few minutes showing some ability before fading into the normal oblivion-in my eyes that doesn't make him the great prospect that others have suggested.
Jake Taylor on the other hand does look to be a real prospect whereas Antonio I rather feel has blown it by not stepping up when called upon.
Just an opinion but I wouldn't be overjoyed if HRK were a starter when we kick off v Millwall..

[ZacNaloen]

We play with wingers, Jake Taylor is not a winger.

he's either an attack minded midfielder, or a number 10.

[SCIAG]

He's played as a winger before and he's perfectly capable there. I'd rather have HRK there though, at least for the time being, as he's proven he's capable of playing well against quality opposition such as Cardiff.

[BR2]

We play with wingers, Jake Taylor is not a winger.

he's either an attack minded midfielder, or a number 10.

You miss the point-I said that I feel Jake Taylor is more of a prospect,not a better winger.

[Svlad Cjelli]

We play with wingers, Jake Taylor is not a winger.

he's either an attack minded midfielder, or a number 10.

You miss the point-I said that I feel Jake Taylor is more of a prospect,not a better winger.

Aren't we allowed to have both of these promising players in the squad?

[ZacNaloen]

^ exactly

you made it sound like you'd have Jake in place of Hal.

They aren't really in competition with each other, so why not have both?

[BR2]

^ exactly

you made it sound like you'd have Jake in place of Hal.

They aren't really in competition with each other, so why not have both?

Because I don't rate HRK.
HRK has been "promising" for about 4 years now but like Church has failed (so far) to deliver.
A big season coming up for both,neither of whom I would ever expect to be good enough to play at the top level.
Please feel free to drag this post up in the event that I am wrong and I would be delighted as it would mean that our club is back in the big time.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Don’t think BR2’s statement is confusing at all.

Doesn’t think HRK or Antonio are great prospects. Does think Jake Taylor is.


MY… MIND… HURTING….! ITS.. GOING… TO… EXPLODE…!

[ZacNaloen]

That is your prerogative BR2 but keep in mind 4 years ago Hal was 18 and a promising academy graduate in his first year on a pro-contract. Most players at our level, unless they are very talented hit their stride at 22/23. So he's still very much been a developing prospect until the last year or so where they have been easing him into the team. The reason you haven't seen a lot of him has been a deliberate development strategy of the current management team. If he was another sigurdsson then yes he would have forced himself into the team but fact is he still has mcanuff and Kebe in front of him so it would be difficult to justify dropping them in place of him when they are two players who are currently at their peak age.


I doubt he's ever going to play for Arsenal, he got released from their academy after all but he's good enough for us and should get more games this season to prove he has the consistency he'll need. Consistency comes from a combination of maturity, confidence and games.

[Hoop Blah]

IN LEAGUE games, JUST league games, we scored NINE extra goals and conceded 7 goals less.

But, magically we were going to BETTER than that?

So with Gylfi (drop Hunt, presumably) we were going to have a GD
improvement on a GD improvement of 16. Pretty impressive, that
would have been.

I think we would've been a more threatening and better team with Sigurdsson in it and we'd have had a player capable and calm enough to make a difference in the tight games.

We'd have had a player who could've turned that horrible run of draws into an undefeated run of games with a few wins in it.

Our goal difference was good because not only did we win a good number of games but we also won a few by a very nice margin. With Sigurdsson in the squad I think we'd have seen more points which is the crucial thing in most league tables.

[Snowball]

The problem is Hoop, the facts.

Play Gylfi and you have to play 451, so Hunt is dropped, bang goes 10 goals and 10 assists in a blink.
Then Gylfi's goals from pens... so Long or Harte lose those goals..
Then the frees... ditto.

The FACTS are we replaced all his goals and then some.

We weren't too good at STOPPING goals when Gylfi played. We were much better defensively when he was out.

I do not dispute that he is far more talented than any player in last year's team,
but it's still a fact that we concede more, win less with him in the side.

And despite his undoubted brilliance, he joined a side in 2nd or 4th and they ended up 11th.

Seems to me that his defensive frailties are an issue. He appears to weak to play
in a 442, so forces 451.

As I say and repeat, fantastic player, but with him we did less well, and it's
more than possible with him this season we'd've NOT made the POs. We would
not have made the POs without the signings his sale allowed, but IMO we might
not have made the POs even if we HAD signed those players.

[SCIAG]

The problem is Hoop, the facts.

Play Gylfi and you have to play 451, so Hunt is dropped, bang goes 10 goals and 10 assists in a blink.
Then Gylfi's goals from pens... so Long or Harte lose those goals..
Then the frees... ditto.

That's rubbish, and quite frankly if you don't know it then you should just give up now because you don't know how to use statistics, let alone how to relate them to football.

Given that Sigurdsson regularly took penalties ahead of Long, and Long regularly took them ahead of Harte, it would be reasonable to assume that Sigurdsson would score at least as many penalties as Long and Harte (though many on here consider Harte a superior taker to Long, which undermines the argument somewhat...). So we don't suddenly "lose" those ten goals. They can, to all intents and purposes, be ignored.

Lose Gylfi and you lose 20 goals and 10 assists in a blink.

The only point you made there that might stand up is "free kicks", as Harte is better at them than Gylfi. However, Gylfi is still a very, very good free kick taker. Maybe he'd have scored a couple less, but maybe the ball would have fallen for him. I don't think it would have, and we certainly replaced Gylfi's free kick expertise by signing Harte.

The FACTS are we replaced all his goals and then some.

Ah, factssssssss.

We didn't, that's an opinion. We have no idea how many goals Gylfi would have scored this season. Just like nobody expected Long to score 16 goals this season (plus penalties).

We weren't too good at STOPPING goals when Gylfi played. We were much better defensively when he was out.

I do not dispute that he is far more talented than any player in last year's team,
but it's still a fact that we concede more, win less with him in the side.

Again, correlation is not equal to causation. You can't just overlook the fact that a) we had Rodgers b) we didn't have Zurab or Griffin and c) we were poor overall for half a season and spent the second half recovering.

And despite his undoubted brilliance, he joined a side in 2nd or 4th and they ended up 11th.

After a handful of games. And he barely played because he was being eased in. And he was their top scorer despite barely playing. And the fans love him.

Seems to me that his defensive frailties are an issue. He appears to weak to play
in a 442, so forces 451.

His defensive frailties force teams to play more defensive formations when he plays?
I think AMC is simply his favoured position, he wouldn't be able to shoot so easily if he played in a more advanced position.

As I say and repeat, fantastic player, but with him we did less well, and it's
more than possible with him this season we'd've NOT made the POs. We would
not have made the POs without the signings his sale allowed, but IMO we might
not have made the POs even if we HAD signed those players.

I pretty much agree with that, except the last sentence. Gylfi+Leigertwood+Harte+Zurab= top two, IMHO.

[Snowball]

Given that Sigurdsson regularly took penalties ahead of Long, and Long regularly took them ahead of Harte, it would be reasonable to assume that Sigurdsson would score at least as many penalties as Long and Harte (though many on here consider Harte a superior taker to Long, which undermines the argument somewhat...). So we don't suddenly "lose" those ten goals. They can, to all intents and purposes, be ignored.

Look, it is terribly simple. A large proportion of Gylfi's goals were penalties. If he took the same number and scored them (missing one) as per 2009-10 IT WILL BE AT THE EXPENSE OF HARTE OR LONG SCORING THEM. Adding Gylfi does NOT add 20 open-play goals. It adds, X penalties and Y free-kicks and A FEW open-play goals.

Every penalty scored by Gylfi is either one less goal for Long or one less goal for Harte. It's that simple. We had 15 or 16 penalties last season. How many do you expect us to get?

Lose Gylfi and you lose 20 goals and 10 assists in a blink.

TWADDLE. Gylfi's "replacement" was, effectively, Noel Hunt who got 10 goals and 7 assists (not a full season) That leaves 10 goals and 3 assists to account for.

7 of Gyfli's goals were penalties. Long scored 7 penalties. Leaving 3 assists. Now check how many more assists Long got...


We did NOT lose any goals. We got MORE goals.

We IMPROVED the defence. We conceded a lot less goals.

Why is that so hard to understand?

The only point you made there that might stand up is "free kicks", as Harte is better at them than Gylfi. However, Gylfi is still a very, very good free kick taker. Maybe he'd have scored a couple less, but maybe the ball would have fallen for him. I don't think it would have, and we certainly replaced Gylfi's free kick expertise by signing Harte.

That's barely relevant. All I am saying is Hunt replaced the open-play goals and most of the assists
and Long/Harte scored MORE penalties between them than Gylfi scored. Harte is at least as good at
Gylfi at free kicks, so we didn't lose out there either. Of COURSE Gylfi is a fabulous, exciting player
but in 451. In the 442 we re-found after he left, we fully replaced his goals, assist, pensm, free-kicks
AND stiffened the midfield defensively.

The FACTS are we replaced all his goals and then some.

Ah, factssssssss.

We didn't, that's an opinion. We have no idea how many goals Gylfi would have scored this season. Just like nobody expected Long to score 16 goals this season (plus penalties).

No it is a fact. I said REPLACED, because the list had talked about losing 20 goals (as per previous season). Long score 16 more, Hunt score 8 more, Harte score 11.
That's 35 which is a bigger number than 20

We weren't too good at STOPPING goals when Gylfi played. We were much better defensively when he was out.

I do not dispute that he is far more talented than any player in last year's team,
but it's still a fact that we concede more, win less with him in the side.

Again, correlation is not equal to causation. You can't just overlook the fact that a) we had Rodgers b) we didn't have Zurab or Griffin and c) we were poor overall for half a season and spent the second half recovering.

Where do I say it's causation? I'm just posting facts.
We had better results in 2009-10 when he didn't play UNDER Rodgers.
We had better results in 2009-10 when he didn't play under McDermot
We had better results this season 4 games v 42 games under McDermot

Gylfi+Leigertwood+Harte+Zurab= top two, IMHO.

I don't agree.

We would have lost Hunt's goals (he wouldn't have played)
We would have lost Hunt's assists (he wouldn't have played)
With the focus on always feeding Gylfi it's very likely Long would have scored less goals (excl pens)

and big PS. Had we kept Gylfi it's 99% likely we would NOT have got Harte, as he was brought
in for his free-kick ability. Thus we would have had to try to somehow improve Williams....


Case rested