I'm quite bored at work, so I'll continue to humour you.
1. The goal on Saturday was no tap in. It was from 12 yards, with the keeper well placed, and he had to hit it first time. A very presentable chance, but pretty well taken, nonetheless.
2. His goal at Birmingham wasn't 'reasonable'. It was excellent.
3. Nobody (literally NOBODY) has suggested that scoring in each game proves he played well in them. Just that goals, and providing a goal threat are an important consideration.
1. I am clever. Sorry if that troubles you.
2. I am not trying to humiliate you. You are posting stuff that I disagree with, so I'm pointing that out. That's how discussions work.
3. What did I miss? That the fans would have groaned if Crofts had missed a good scoring chance? Of course they would. That doesn't mean it was 'unmissable', though, by any means.
He may well have scored a tap in and a good reasonable goal against Birmingham but that doesn't mean he had good games whatsoever. He seemed to contribute nothing elsewhere.
1. The goal on Saturday was no tap in. It was from 12 yards, with the keeper well placed, and he had to hit it first time. A very presentable chance, but pretty well taken, nonetheless.
2. His goal at Birmingham wasn't 'reasonable'. It was excellent.
3. Nobody (literally NOBODY) has suggested that scoring in each game proves he played well in them. Just that goals, and providing a goal threat are an important consideration.
And stop trying to look clever. Funny that you haven't replied to the my second question from my last post. But instead, you give a smug answer which in attempting to humiliate me, you have humiliated yourself by showing that your original point was wrong by not answering my question.
1. I am clever. Sorry if that troubles you.
2. I am not trying to humiliate you. You are posting stuff that I disagree with, so I'm pointing that out. That's how discussions work.
3. What did I miss? That the fans would have groaned if Crofts had missed a good scoring chance? Of course they would. That doesn't mean it was 'unmissable', though, by any means.