steelcityowlsfan Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, steelcityowlsfan said: I respect your opinion but I cant understand why people keep questioning the service. Our chance/conversion rate has been poor and it has cost us this season. In games we have been in control of we have missed multiple chances to take the lead. As we all know we are a much better side when we are a goal to the good and find it difficult to win games coming from behind with the odd exception or two. We we have also only beat teams by 2 goals on 2 occasions showing our inability to kill teams off. Even in that wonderful result at Newcastle we missed 3 great chances one of which was a peach of a cross from Bannan to Fletcher and though Darkol did brilliantly you would still say Fletcher has to score there. The service is fine, it's the conversion of the chances that's missing. Jordan Rhodes would vastly improve that. Apologies for auto correct issues. Should read only one we and Darlow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Spiksley Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 For me it is about getting Hooper a better supply to his feet, and better deliveries to Fletcher. Rhodes wouldn't be that signing IMHO. Would like a creative type (attacking Midfielder) for half the money Rhodes is apparently up for e.g. you could buy a player of the calibre of Max Kruse from Germany (obviously not for sale and not an option!!!) as a good illustration of what is out there and at what price. I like the Dutch market too, some quality players available there for half the asking price of that the chaotic market of EFL offers, likewise Portugal... That said, Rhodes would add value to our squad - that is all he would do, but if he was available for a loan (with option on buying) or under £7m then would be a good investment. £11m is too much given his lack of first team action. His value needs reassessing. But we also have a squad that already contains Abdi, Reach, Joao, FF (for how long?????), plus others.... so do we need more? IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamese Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 38 minutes ago, StudentOwl said: What makes you say that? If you compare us to the league's runaway leading scorers in Newcastle United, we're no less proficient than them at creating chances Newcastle United Sheffield Wednesday Shots per game: 14.3 14.0 Shots on target: 5.3 (37%) 4.4 (31%) % shots inside area: 57.0 60.0 Goals scored: 48 27 So if we're creating a comparable number of shooting opportunities to Newcastle every game, with a comparable number of these chances coming inside the 18 yard box... where do you suppose the problem lies? I generally agree with you, but number of shots doesn't always = clear cut chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxtongent Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 43 minutes ago, StudentOwl said: Newcastle United Sheffield Wednesday Shots per game: 14.3 14.0 Shots on target: 5.3 (37%) 4.4 (31%) % shots inside area: 57.0 60.0 Goals scored: 48 27 So if we're creating a comparable number of shooting opportunities to Newcastle every game, with a comparable number of these chances coming inside the 18 yard box... where do you suppose the problem lies? The Bold , Underlined (mine), tells the story. If you don't target the goal, for whatever reason, you will NOT score goals. Despite everyone trying to complicate,soccer is a SIMPLE game. You hit the back of their net legally more than they do yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 1 minute ago, jamese said: I generally agree with you, but number of shots doesn't always = clear cut chances. No it doesn't, again you can never draw too many conclusions from it But, to supplement further: -We have more shots in the box than Newcastle (albeit marginally) -We have fewer shots blocked than Newcastle (implying that when shots are being taken, there's enough room to get a shot away) -Our shots on target % is dramatically lower than Newcastles (not just marginally), despite us having more shots in the box I know what you're saying, I get you entirely... all these numbers in the world don't convey whether they're actual clear-cut chances that should be tucked away, but what it does highlight is that we're getting the ball in the right area for our strikers to have shots that can't or aren't blocked by defenders. Yet for whatever reason, these shots aren't hitting the target with the sort of regularity they should be, and they're certainly not going in with the regularity they should be. The excuse of "well maybe they're not clear-cut chances" is valid, but can only take you so far. Maybe if we were only half a dozen or so goals behind Newcastle then I'd be on the same page as you, but we're 21 goals behind them. Seems to me there's no end of reasonably good chances being created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Spiksley Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Buxtongent said: The Bold , Underlined (mine), tells the story. If you don't target the goal, for whatever reason, you will NOT score goals. Despite everyone trying to complicate,soccer is a SIMPLE game. You hit the back of their net legally more than they do yours. Football is a simple game of course - in principle only. At professional level it is not a simple game. Statistics of this type do not illustrate the actual situation. Compare the same statistics across the whole Championship for perhaps a fuller picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Spiksley Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, StudentOwl said: No it doesn't, again you can never draw too many conclusions from it But, to supplement further: -We have more shots in the box than Newcastle (albeit marginally) -We have fewer shots blocked than Newcastle (implying that when shots are being taken, there's enough room to get a shot away) -Our shots on target % is dramatically lower than Newcastles (not just marginally), despite us having more shots in the box I know what you're saying, I get you entirely... all these numbers in the world don't convey whether they're actual clear-cut chances that should be tucked away, but what it does highlight is that we're getting the ball in the right area for our strikers to have shots that can't or aren't blocked by defenders. Yet for whatever reason, these shots aren't hitting the target with the sort of regularity they should be, and they're certainly not going in with the regularity they should be. The excuse of "well maybe they're not clear-cut chances" is valid, but can only take you so far. Maybe if we were only half a dozen or so goals behind Newcastle then I'd be on the same page as you, but we're 21 goals behind them. Seems to me there's no end of reasonably good chances being created. Dwight Gayle? Does he count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1867Heaven Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 If we'd of had Rhodes in his Blackburn form from start of this season then we would be troubling the top 2 at the moment at the very least in my opinion. Hooper is a very good player at this level and Fletcher has other strengths but Rhodes is a quality player at this level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, A12owl said: Could the problem be that the goalies who have played against us have had fabulous games. Darlow to name one. We could/should have scored 3 or 4 against the Magpies. Same against one or two other teams. The figures above say that our shots arnt going in, others are going in. Simples Sure, for every one of our 23 games the goalkeepers have been fantastic, no exceptions. They don't try as hard when they play the other teams The bottom line is that we're getting plenty of chances in the box, but we're not sticking them away. They're not being blocked by defenders with any more regularity than other teams, so the shots are just not resulting in goals as often as they should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaddyOwl Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 One way this goes down if Rhodes comes to us then Fessi is on his way and i would rather have Forestieri any day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookone Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 23 hours ago, theowlsman said: Owlinmad says his son is a football agent, best mates with Rhodes, and he's coming here on loan. Derby, earlier linked to Rhodes, have ruled themselves out of the running to buy him, according to Pat Murphy of the BBC. Same Pat Murphy also saying Villa have also ruled themselves out of the running to buy him @ the asking price of £11million. So, if he is going anywhere in Jan, it'll be to another club, not Derby or Villa, on a permanent deal, for the asking price of £11million, or to Villa if they can negotiate the fee down from £11million, or to any other club who can negotiate the fee down from the asking price of £11million, or he'll simply go on loan somewhere. Make your own conclusions. Personally, as he has been at our games recently, and Boro seem adamant they will only let him go permanently for £11million, which nobody seems to want to pay, I think we have a good chance of getting him on loan as hinted at by Owlinmad. Will be nipping to Home Bargains for Kleenex just in case. Got a cold have we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963owl Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 13 minutes ago, JaddyOwl said: One way this goes down if Rhodes comes to us then Fessi is on his way and i would rather have Forestieri any day i agree mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 18 minutes ago, JaddyOwl said: One way this goes down if Rhodes comes to us then Fessi is on his way and i would rather have Forestieri any day Well yes, in that hypothetical situation I agree But why does it have to be Forestieri or Rhodes? Why not both? Why not neither? If your hypothetical situation comes to pass then yeah, sure I agree with you... but it's just that, a hypothetical situation with seemingly no evidence that that would happen if Rhodes signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simaniac Owl Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Simaniac Owl said: Unusual for him to work in absolutes... doesn't he normally say everything really vaguely so he can backpedal later? Worked himself into a right corner with this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogbad Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 27 minutes ago, JaddyOwl said: One way this goes down if Rhodes comes to us then Fessi is on his way and i would rather have Forestieri any day An on form Forestieri yes I'd agree with you as he gives us something different to an out & out striker like Rhodes but unfortunately we've only seen an on form Forestieri about 3 times this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IstillhateSteveBould Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 1 hour ago, A12owl said: Senior career* Years Team Apps (Gls) 2004–2006 Grays Athletic 68 (20) 2006–2008 Southend United 32 (2) 2007 → Leyton Orient (loan) 4 (2) 2008 → Hereford United (loan) 19 (11) 2008–2010 Scunthorpe United 80 (43) 2010–2013 Celtic 95 (63) 2013–2016 Norwich City 64 (18) 2015–2016 → Sheffield Wednesday (loan) 12 (6) 2016– Sheffield Wednesday 34 (12 Apart from a bit of a hiccup at Norwich Hoopers record would be hard to beat. Hoopers's championship totals - 19 12 13 Rhodes' 27 25 21 16 Rhodes' best league 1 tally is 36. Hooper's is 24. Hooper's best tally in Scotland was 24, Stevie May and Michael Higdon managed 20 in that league for poorer sides. Rhodes > Hooper. There really is no debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toooldforthis Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 3 hours ago, StudentOwl said: What makes you say that? If you compare us to the league's runaway leading scorers in Newcastle United, we're no less proficient than them at creating chances Newcastle United Sheffield Wednesday Shots per game: 14.3 14.0 Shots on target: 5.3 (37%) 4.4 (31%) % shots inside area: 57.0 60.0 Goals scored: 48 27 So if we're creating a comparable number of shooting opportunities to Newcastle every game, with a comparable number of these chances coming inside the 18 yard box... where do you suppose the problem lies? Stats don't mention quality of opportunity. Look at the chances in recent weeks and they're not as clear cut as that, they're more like half chances because we only have one way of playing the ball in to our strikers. Having said that we should have had 3 against Newcastle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigthinrob Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 10 hours ago, Philb125 said: Just my opinion that he isn't the lord and savior reincarnated or the answer to all of our woes... enjoy the game! Hope Hutch gets into Pearson early on! Im hopeful that today's the day we score 3!! Phew!! Just got back, not 3 goals but it felt like it when that went in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigthinrob Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 6 hours ago, JaddyOwl said: One way this goes down if Rhodes comes to us then Fessi is on his way and i would rather have Forestieri any day How the F**k do you work that one out???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts