Ashley Barnes is clearly good enough for us.......

[Mr Burns]

STATS DONT 'FOOL' PEOPLE!!!!

They are STATS. i.e FACTS. Things that HAPPENED.

Barnes SCORED 20. I honestly couldnt give a shit if he spent 89 minutes sitting in the centre circle picking his arse. If he then, for one moment, gets in the box and scores then he has done his job!

Unbelieveable.

It isn't unbleiveable mate, if you take a second to think about it. A stat is a fact granted. But unless you look at the times he went through on goal last season and didn't even get a shot in, then the stats dont show the whole picture do they. Back in the 80s when Phil Neal or Ray Stewart took penalties from right back, there stats probably showed 8 shots 8 goals over the season. Would you sign them up as a striker on the back of those stats. Off course you wouldn't as you look at other things the stats don't show and make the judgement.

Same with Ashley. Stats look good, but it doesn't show the whole picture. I'm not going to start bashing Barnes again from day one, but he missed two sitters yesterday, sure CMS missed a good chance, and Noone missed a sitter, but if Buckley hadn't done his thing, then AShleys misses would have been more important and people would have taken more notice of them.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Ashley.... he missed two sitters yesterday, .

Really?

Obviously, there was the close range one, where he BEAT the keeper, but it got cleared off the line.

What was the other 'sitter'?

 

[Mr Burns]

ffs Mr Burns, for a player you "dont hate" you certainly spend alot of time talking him down and nitpicking performances, while ignoring 20 goals from 37 games. for a 21 yo to be getting 2:1 game to goal ratio is brilliant, but in your view it should have been 1:1, so therefore he's poor

Siiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh. Well whatever you want to think.

But face facts. If Hoskins was fit he'd have started yesterday. Lord Gus has already said he still wants another striker. Considering we have Berkhamp and Agenstein in the development squad, I'd say its a first team striker he's speaking off, and he's not going to sign a "championship" striker to play 4th choice behind CMA/Hoskins/Barnes and maybe even Buckley, so I'd say going by that, someone else has the feeling that Barnes isn't good enough for the first team squad.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Really?

Obviously, there was the close range one, where he BEAT the keeper, but it got cleared off the line.

What was the other 'sitter'?

Yes I was wondering that.

 

[Mr Burns]

Really?

Obviously, there was the close range one, where he BEAT the keeper, but it got cleared off the line.

What was the other 'sitter'?

There was one in the second half that he snatched at, and went high and wide. Not nearly as good as chance as the first half one or Noones miss, but still should be doing a hell of a lot better than he did.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

There was one in the second half that he snatched at, and went high and wide. Not nearly as good as chance as the first half one or Noones miss, but still should be doing a hell of a lot better than he did.

So not a sitter then.......

 

[Publius Ovidius]

There was one in the second half that he snatched at, and went high and wide. Not nearly as good as chance as the first half one or Noones miss, but still should be doing a hell of a lot better than he did.

what that one that came flying at him and he was off balance trying to keep it down.

If that was a "sitter" then you are very harsh and possibly a tad deluded

 

[Dorset Seagull]

It's a fair point about stats as they never show the full picture. For example Buckley was a fresh pair of legs against a tired defence and it could be argued that if Barnes had come off the bench late he maybe would have scored. Not taking sides on this one just agreeing that there are many factors which stats alone don't show.

 

[Mr Burns]

what that one that came flying at him and he was off balance trying to keep it down.

If that was a "sitter" then you are very harsh and possibly a tad deluded

Fine, don't class it as a sitter then. But if you have a free shot on goal, from inside the box without a challenge, I'd call that a sitter. Not as easy as Noones, but easier than CMS from what I remember

 

[Mr Burns]

It's a fair point about stats as they never show the full picture. For example Buckley was a fresh pair of legs against a tired defence and it could be argued that if Barnes had come off the bench late he maybe would have scored. Not taking sides on this one just agreeing that there are many factors which stats alone don't show.

Exactly. Stats can be used to show anything. You've only got to look at government to see that.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

you have a free shot on goal, from inside the box without a challenge, I'd call that a sitter.

sigh

 

[Acker79]

It isn't unbleiveable mate, if you take a second to think about it. A stat is a fact granted. But unless you look at the times he went through on goal last season and didn't even get a shot in, then the stats dont show the whole picture do they. Back in the 80s when Phil Neal or Ray Stewart took penalties from right back, there stats probably showed 8 shots 8 goals over the season. Would you sign them up as a striker on the back of those stats. Off course you wouldn't as you look at other things the stats don't show and make the judgement.

But you wouldn't sign a defender on goals scored, because that's not what they are there for. Scoring is the main job role for a striker, so the number of goals he scores is going to be looked at and weighted accordingly. It won't be the only stat, of course not. But most of a footballer's attributes are stats. Maybe you don't go into solid detail, just going on impression, but it's still all stats.

Some people use shots to goals ratio, you're using chances to goals ratio. A shot is more easily measurable, because it is a clear action, a chance isn't so clear, what may look easy from the side of the pitch won't be nearly as easy with a goalkeeper bearing down on you, a ball being slow to come down, a defender breathing down your neck and 20,000 people scream and yelling and feeding their own anxiety on to you. A slight bobble may be the difference between a sweetly struck shot and an air kick, and so deciding what is a chance, good chance, clear chance, or sitter becomes subjective, but still chances to goals scored is a stat. Tackles won and lost is a stat reflecting how often a player loses the ball, completed passes, fouls, offsides, distance travelled are all stats that are reflective of areas of a player's game.

Stats don't show the full picture, but they can help frame arguments and can give a decent of idea of the picture, when used responsibly (as I try to do, unless trying to make a point about someone else's twisting of stats).



I'm still surprised by lambert's stats 149 shots, twice that of barnes (which I'm sure would more than compensate for missed opportunities to shoot, especially when you add in lambert's missed opportunities to shoot - which all strikers will have) and only one goal more. Really puts paid to the argument "any other striker would have had x goals if they'd had ashley's chances", in my opinion.

 

[trueblue]

Same with Ashley. Stats look good, but it doesn't show the whole picture. I'm not going to start bashing Barnes again from day one, but he missed two sitters yesterday, sure CMS missed a good chance, and Noone missed a sitter, but if Buckley hadn't done his thing, then AShleys misses would have been more important and people would have taken more notice of them.

Why do we even bother getting into an argument with this clown?

Tell me, which of the magnificent array of young strikers we've had over the past, what, 20 years has been as good as Barnes is at just 21? Obviously there must be loads of them.

His finishing towards the end of last season was superb as he grew in confidence and experience. Clearly he didn't take any notice of the sort of gibberish that gets written on here about him.

 

[darters74]

Fine, don't class it as a sitter then. But if you have a free shot on goal, from inside the box without a challenge, I'd call that a sitter. Not as easy as Noones, but easier than CMS from what I remember

And there was a defender between him and the goal. Wasn't easier than CMS'........

 

[Pantani]

And there was a defender between him and the goal. Wasn't easier than CMS'........

He is not even talking about that chance there. Mr Burns has made up another supposed sitter that Barnes has missed, one that does not appear on the 9 minutes of highlights from the Football League Show. Plus missing a second sitter should be irrelevant anyway as that is a stat, and we all know how he feels about them.

 

[Mr Burns]

And there was a defender between him and the goal. Wasn't easier than CMS'........

Fair enough. That's your opinion.

 

[Mr Burns]

But you wouldn't sign a defender on goals scored, because that's not what they are there for. Scoring is the main job role for a striker, so the number of goals he scores is going to be looked at and weighted accordingly. It won't be the only stat, of course not. But most of a footballer's attributes are stats. Maybe you don't go into solid detail, just going on impression, but it's still all stats.

Some people use shots to goals ratio, you're using chances to goals ratio. A shot is more easily measurable, because it is a clear action, a chance isn't so clear, what may look easy from the side of the pitch won't be nearly as easy with a goalkeeper bearing down on you, a ball being slow to come down, a defender breathing down your neck and 20,000 people scream and yelling and feeding their own anxiety on to you. A slight bobble may be the difference between a sweetly struck shot and an air kick, and so deciding what is a chance, good chance, clear chance, or sitter becomes subjective, but still chances to goals scored is a stat. Tackles won and lost is a stat reflecting how often a player loses the ball, completed passes, fouls, offsides, distance travelled are all stats that are reflective of areas of a player's game.

Stats don't show the full picture, but they can help frame arguments and can give a decent of idea of the picture, when used responsibly (as I try to do, unless trying to make a point about someone else's twisting of stats).



I'm still surprised by lambert's stats 149 shots, twice that of barnes (which I'm sure would more than compensate for missed opportunities to shoot, especially when you add in lambert's missed opportunities to shoot - which all strikers will have) and only one goal more. Really puts paid to the argument "any other striker would have had x goals if they'd had ashley's chances", in my opinion.

But all stats again. Are you saying you wouldn't swap Ashley Barnes for Lambert??

Bottom line is, what ever I say, or anyone else say, the great man himself has already stated he still hopes to sign a proven championship striker. If this is the case Barnes will be either 4th choice after CMS Hoskins, new player, or 5th choice if Buckley carries on as he did at the weekend.

So whatever we all argue about Ashley Barnes, it would appear our manager is happy to sign someone else and drop Barnes down to 4th/5th choice.

Sort of makes what we are arguing about pretty pointless really, when Lord Gus himself is happy to see Barnes that far down the pecking order?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Back away from this thread please. No-one is coming out of this thread looking good. Mr B - you seem to be tying yourself up in every tighter knots.

 

[Acker79]

But all stats again. Are you saying you wouldn't swap Ashley Barnes for Lambert??

Bottom line is, what ever I say, or anyone else say, the great man himself has already stated he still hopes to sign a proven championship striker. If this is the case Barnes will be either 4th choice after CMS Hoskins, new player, or 5th choice if Buckley carries on as he did at the weekend.

So whatever we all argue about Ashley Barnes, it would appear our manager is happy to sign someone else and drop Barnes down to 4th/5th choice.

Sort of makes what we are arguing about pretty pointless really, when Lord Gus himself is happy to see Barnes that far down the pecking order?

I can't say the prospect of signing lambert has ever excited me. But I'm not overly familiar with other teams' players. I am more than happy with barnes and his contribution.

I think Buckley isn't a threat to Barnes. Gus played two strikers with buckley replacing sparrow. I also think when there are two striker positions, it makes the subs choice 2 and 3, not 3 and 4, and that's if they're interchangeable. If, say you have two left sided forwards and two right sided forwards, I'd say you have two first choice strikers and two second choice, but that's semantics, really.

I would also argue that in modern football, at least the way gus plays it, there isn't so much a pecking order as what is the preferred way to play, what is the preferred way to play against specific opponents (when the preferred way to play generally isn't necessarily effective or likely to work), options for changing the game, and which players are best suited to it. Last year we didn't have a first 11 we had a first 14-16, changing depending on what Gus wanted to do depending on opponents, home or away. Often times Gus left Lualua, and then later Noone, on the bench because his first preferred way to play was to wear the team down with the passing game, then when the opponents wer tiring, bring on a pacey winger. if the tactic is there from the beginning was lualua/noone second choice?

 

[Rugrat]

the great man himself has already stated he still hopes to sign a proven championship striker. If this is the case Barnes will be either 4th choice after CMS Hoskins, new player, or 5th choice if Buckley carries on as he did at the weekend.

So whatever we all argue about Ashley Barnes, it would appear our manager is happy to sign someone else and drop Barnes down to 4th/5th choice.

Sort of makes what we are arguing about pretty pointless really, when Lord Gus himself is happy to see Barnes that far down the pecking order?

Lots of supposition there mate. If we do sign another striker I'd put money on him being a big target man for when things go a bit pear shaped and we need a different approach. Barnes will always be competing with CMS and Hoskins so is a number 3 by the looks of it and not a 4/5 meaning plenty of starts and sub appearances- and I'm convinced he's a key part of Gus's plans.

As for Buckley he's a wide MF .. competing with KLL and Noone .. nout to do with this I reckon