Tell that to Benteke .. he didn't in 5 appearances (despite being the captain and playing the full game in one) !
Palace up bid.. £30m for Benteke
- Thread starter Buddha
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
So your point is what, Rosco? You rate Benteke? You think we should keep him?
I think I agree with Rosco. Benteke isn't a bad player. But a lot of posters are talking like he's the worst striker we've ever had.
He's a good striker, but he's not going to succeed with us.
Anyone not wanting to sell him given the rumoured offers is mental.
Look, he's not the messiah, but to say he's shit is plain silly really. his job is/was to score goals. He's scored plenty of goals per minutes for a team that's simply not set up to play to his strengths.
He will no doubt go to palace where they'll set the team around him and we'll all moan when he scores more than any of our lot next season.
Should be stay? No. He's simply not suited to us under Klopp. In the right team though, he could really come good.
He will no doubt go to palace where they'll set the team around him and we'll all moan when he scores more than any of our lot next season.
Should be stay? No. He's simply not suited to us under Klopp. In the right team though, he could really come good.
Only as shit as the last shit one
I don't think they are. I think people - and I'm one of them - can't believe we spent that amount of money on this guy in the first place. and now incredibly are likely to recoup that.
Hence the hysteria to get rid of him.
It's simple really. If you buy a car for 32k & it doesn't work properly, then a year later some fucker offers you 26k for it, you snap their hand off. Fuck the rest.
Jesus wept.
Benteke score 9 in 14 starts and 15 sub appearances (1,520 mins = 1:169 mins), Origi scored 5 in 7+9 subs (669 = 1: 133.8). Shows you how distorting using starts, instead of mins per goal, is doesn't it.
Last edited:
You are always so quick to want to 'be proven right' that logic escapes you at times. How is playing and failing to score, against inferior teams in the FAC, proving your point ? As I've indicated above : even in the PL Benteke (1 in 169 mins) is way behind Sturridge (1 per 122.5 mins) and Origi (1 per 133.8 mins) in mins per goal so your 'point' is blown apart.
Which if you go back to the Benteke to Liverpool thread and subsequent threads, you'll find is almost exactly what I've said too. However I don't agree with some posters diluting history in the Benteke threads when it's a) obvious he doesn't suit our system and b) the stats clearly back that up, in both the PL and cups.
Mins per goal is very questionable though, because statistically the sample size is so small. If you take away one of Origi's goals, the numbers are nearly identical.
It's not really a valid stat to base an argument on without at least 10-15 goals minimum.
And that's not even accounting for variables outside of the player's control. Goals incorrectly ruled in or out, quality of minutes(i.e. getting subbed on for 20 minutes while defending deep), being forced to play with a man down and having fewer attacking options, etc etc.
Increasing the sample size accounts for some of this, but sample sizes in this sport utilizing goals are generally quite small anyways.
The variables are always there though and it doesn't stop anyone and everyone using goals scored (plus maybe assists) as the barometer to judge a striker - regardless of sample size (though that is why I left Ings off the PL only stats).
However you can't say It's not really a valid stat to base an argument on without at least 10-15 goals minimum because that doesn't make any sense (a striker could rack up 10,000 mins without reaching your 10 goals but that would be invalid under your system). The only thing that is an accurate assessment of a striker's goal-rate is to use the amount of minutes played as the basis and then see how many goals that striker has scored in his actual time on the pitch (not starts+subs).
People using it as a barometer to judge a striker doesn't make it valid or intelligent though.
Froggy, this is garbage statistics. I like minutes/goal better than goals or goals per appearance by a wide margin, it's definitely more reflective. But using minutes/goal with a sample size of 6 goals is super super questionable, because adding or removing 1 goal skews your minutes/goal ratio so dramatically. Hence why I say you need a sample size of at least 10-15 goals to make this stat valid.
I agree that too low a sample size can invalidate any research, however you seem to have missed the point. Minutes played not goals scored is the only valid criteria, no matter how many goals have been scored. That's surely the whole point, how many goals the striker scores in the time he has played. You simply can't wait for a striker to hit an arbitrary figure of 10 goals. I agree there are other factors involved, how the striker integrates into the team, adapts to the style of play (pressing, defending etc.) but at the end of the day strikers are judged on virtually one criteria - goals - whether they hit 10 or not per season is irrelevant.
I'm not so sure about that though. I think there's a point where if a player logs enough minutes, the minutes/goal ratio can be valid even if they have a low sample size of goals(i.e Lallana 4 goals in 2114 minutes). But Origi has both a low number of total minutes and goals, so the ratio is questionable due to a small sample size of both.
And we don't usually care about players with few goals in a lot of minutes, because they play non-attacking roles and the stat isn't really meaningful for determining their value to the team. So even if they are susceptible to having stats skewed by a goal or two in a short period of time, it doesn't affect how we gauge their value.
I really do prefer the minutes per point or minutes per goal stat, but I don't think you can compare Origi's numbers to Benteke in this case with validity. Like I mentioned, removing one of Origi's goals makes his ratio almost identical to Benteke's.
I guess it kinda pans out like this. Arbitrary, but about how I evaluate the ratio when looking at it.
[xtable=skin1]
{tbody}
{tr}
{td} {/td}
{td}Few Goals(<10){/td}
{td} Many Goals{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Few Minutes(<1000){/td}
{td}Questionable{/td}
{td}Phenom{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Many Minutes{/td}
{td}Non-Attacking Player, Andy Carroll{/td}
{td}Valid{/td}
{/tr}
{/tbody}
[/xtable]
@Whirly That's why I didn't include the stats on our non-strikers (bar Coutinho because the amount of goals he has scored makes him worthy of inclusion).
Since we are in agreement on the value of 'mins per goal' over 'goals per start+subs' then the only point of contention is exactly where the 'mins per goal' becomes a valid method of evaluation of striker effectiveness (or efficiency if you prefer). You've used 1,000 mins whereas personally I am happy with Origi's 669 mins, that's a personal decision.
To match Benteke, Origi would have to score 4 more goals in his next 851 mins on the pitch. That might not happen of course or he may score more.
Since we are in agreement on the value of 'mins per goal' over 'goals per start+subs' then the only point of contention is exactly where the 'mins per goal' becomes a valid method of evaluation of striker effectiveness (or efficiency if you prefer). You've used 1,000 mins whereas personally I am happy with Origi's 669 mins, that's a personal decision.
To match Benteke, Origi would have to score 4 more goals in his next 851 mins on the pitch. That might not happen of course or he may score more.
His career record is pretty much one in two. Your stats are selective to say the least.
I don't think he was a good fit for us and I think the weight of expectation coupled with our inability to know how to use him, got to him. But quit with the "he's shit anyway" diatribe. Because it's blatantly wrong.
As for the earlier comments by someone about Benteke being "thick and unable to be trained". Only a thick person would think you can train a burly, 25 year old centre forward into a completely different sort of striker. It doesn't make him "thick", we're just really fucking stupid for thinking we could buy him and adapt him to a system that was 100% reliant on movement, constant pressing and pace. It's why Daniel Sturridge doesn't quite fit it either, I don't think that makes him thick or shit. Pressing and winning the ball back high up the pitch just isn't his game. But heh, he's a fucking lethal finisher if you give him the right sort of service.
People easily buy into the idea that the system is always right.
You need to look at the whole picture and not only a part of it. How good team player he is, how hard he works on the pitch, how much space he open up for other players, how good leader he is, will the system fit the player, will the tactic fit the player and so on.
To get the best out of Benteke you must build the tactics and system around him, you don't need to do that with Origi. That is one example. A striker may only score seven, eight goals but he could be the reason to why two other players score 15+. That is one other example.
To get the best out of Benteke you must build the tactics and system around him, you don't need to do that with Origi. That is one example. A striker may only score seven, eight goals but he could be the reason to why two other players score 15+. That is one other example.
WTF are you on about. Quote me where I've said anything of the sort. In fact I've generally said the exact opposite. If you had bothered to read this thread (post #132) you'd have seen my complete opinion on him (basically exactly what you've just written).
Not interested in his career stats. Only those for us, so to call his complete stats for last season, selective, is an interesting take to say the least.
I'm not sure why you were compounding the point about his stats last season being any sort of reflection of his actual ability when:
- He didn't get runs of games
- He was brought into a system he clearly didn't suit nor adapted to
- We failed to make any sort of effort to adapt to him
- His confidence was shot and he also had a couple of injuries
- A change in manager part way through the season made it abundantly clear he wasn't wanted here
Here's his Premiership record:
118 Appearances - 51 goals.
He's not shit, he's thick. Something Klopp recognised immediately. He's never going to be able to give Klopp what he wants from a striker.
We've had this conversation on here before, and there is a reason why the normal "convention" is to quote games started and goals scored as one of the main criteria.
There's merit in both, obviously, but not all players are the same. Plenty require time and minutes to get themselves into a game. Strikers don't want to come on as a sub for lots of obvious reasons, and that's one of them.
Taking your "minutes played" to an absurd length, would a player be more fairly rated, or happier, with two full games at 90 minutes to show their quality, or 18 games in which they only come on for the last 10 minutes?
They may only get one chance per appearance. Or none. And who scores from every chance?
Starting games is also a psychological boost. It shows you have the trust of the manager and your team-mates. They are set up to play with you. A perma-sub may often simply try too hard to impress, knowing they only have a very small window.
Benteke scored 9 Premiership goals in only 14 starts. That's impressive. If he'd started every game at that rate of scoring he would have scored 24.
First a clarification : in the PL Benteke scored 4 goals in those 14 games he started (subbed off twice) ... and 5 goals when coming on as substitute. So the 9 goals in 14 starts stat is a little misleading to say the least without a synopsis.
Whilst I agree that starting or coming on as a substitute can affect players in different ways it clearly didn't affect Benteke too much judging from the clarification. In fact, as a striker, one could say you are at an advantage playing against tiring defenders and legs. This may well have been the case with Benteke but it would be too much supposition to say whether that was the case or not.
You started a thread the other day based on (dodgy) stats.
Football these days have too many people like you, who think they have the edge because the stats tell them so.
The soft intel which you seem to skip over so easily, is the why strikers should start a game rather than coming off the bench
Football these days have too many people like you, who think they have the edge because the stats tell them so.
The soft intel which you seem to skip over so easily, is the why strikers should start a game rather than coming off the bench
Who said it was any reflection of his ability ? And those stats are merely a reflection of his time with LFC - which is all that matters. I compiled those stats in the first place (originally posted in the Studge, Origi & Ings thread) to highlight that we would be fine with only Studge, Origi and Ings and that Benteke wasn't, or shouldn't be, integral to our attack (especially without Euro football). I then used those same stats to debate a claim in this thread.
- Neither Origi nor Ings got a run of games either. Many players don't - it may affect some players but surely can't be used as an excuse.
- Exactly the point I've made numerous times
- We shouldn't have to. The manager decides on the system and I don't see why a compromise should be made for Benteke. Adapt or move on.
- Same could be said of Sturridge and Origi .. and maybe Ings too.
- Klopp said he'd give everyone a fair shot .. Benteke played over 1,500 mins including starting 7 of our last 11 games, coming on with 30 mins to go in 2 of the other 4. He can't claim he didn't get a fair chance to impress.
Last edited:
I prefer stats (i.e. actual facts, so nothing dodgy about them) to the crap you regularly spout. I have no idea WTF you are on about in that second sentence, you can't start all four of our strikers (besides which as I've just pointed out - Benteke started 7 of our last 11 matches).
- Status
