New striker?

mattcity5 said:
Will try and find things...

Ronaldo:



Kane:



Sterling:



These are a couple of seasons old and Sterling's is from early in the season, but it fits in with us trying to create good chances rather than shoot from anywhere. Ronaldo will shoot from anywhere bacause a) he's not bad at it and B) he's mostly bothered about himself, but even with those good at shooting, most long shots don't go in.

It doesn't give everything, but does in part back up what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Not sure it does :)

It suggests that Ronaldo shoots from outside the box more than Sterling's small sample, but nowhere near enough to overturn Sterling's advantage, and all of them still shoot mostly inside the box. (I see it about 2/3 inside for Ronaldo, 3 out of 4 for Kane)

You're right, Sterling's is too small a sample - just 16 shots. It would only take two or three long shot to make those similar to Kane and Ronaldo.

Even if shooting randomly from outside the box with little chance of scoring was a good thing (it clearly isn't and City players are obviously encouraged not to do it), then discounting those shots still doesn't make Ronaldo or Kane's goals/shot ratio better than Sterling.

So, not only does he make more of his chances, there is less evidence he gives up possession with random low xG potshots as often.
 
mccity said:
Aguero was another player who took a lot of shots per game, just to add to the discussion.
Click to expand...
He's not in the same league as Ronaldo or Kane (probably because there is more competition for chances at City).

I had a look at Aguero's last three "full" seasons (so not last year), and he's at about 4.5 shots per goal when you take out penalties - so just slightly better than Sterling.

What's interesting is that a lot of people think putting a top "number 9" in our side will automatically equal a huge goal return, but how many are better than Aguero was?
 
bluenova said:
He's not in the same league as Ronaldo or Kane (probably because there is more competition for chances at City).

I had a look at Aguero's last three "full" seasons (so not last year), and he's at about 4.5 shots per goal when you take out penalties - so just slightly better than Sterling.

What's interesting is that a lot of people think putting a top "number 9" in our side will automatically equal a huge goal return, but how many are better than Aguero was?
Click to expand...
Apologies for the disjointed post:

I'm of the opinion that a top 9 is a valuable but not necessary addition. I've seen far too many games since the Mancini days where even with Aguero, Tevez, Dzeko, Balotelli, Negredo, Jovetic, or whoever up top where we spurn 50 chances and lose 1-0. A striker doesn't magically fix that.

Of course there are days that they do save the day (Aguero especially), but ultimately when that happens is unpredictable; even Ronaldo and Messi got it wrong in certain important fixtures.

There are also a lot of fixtures whereby we miss a lot of chances, but none of them fell to the striker, so the striker himself couldn't have made a difference (despite what posters would say).

I used to think it was interesting that from 17-18 through to 19-20, our goals per game wasn't affected by who started up top.


The truth is, in order for our collective goals per game to substantially increase we need a player who BOTH improves team play AND is a great goalscorer. I can see the appeal specifically with Kane from Pep's perspective for that reason. But a goalscorer alone won't change much. Torres is a great finisher but he doesn't help with build up play as much as others may, so that's one thing. Last season we used false 9s, and whoever was up front didn't score much but everyone else did.

Ronaldo or Haaland MAY have broken the mould this season because of just how good a scorer they both are. But really just signing a good forward or a strong goalscorer doesn't change much.

People may say that we'd need a goalscorer in a tight game, but again you lose something in those games if they can't help in the build up too well.

We could do with a pure striker just for the sake of variety, but a striker for the sake of it won't magically change anything as you say. Just like a normal LB wouldn't.
 
mccity said:
Apologies for the disjointed post:

I'm of the opinion that a top 9 is a valuable but not necessary addition. I've seen far too many games since the Mancini days where even with Aguero, Tevez, Dzeko, Balotelli, Negredo, Jovetic, or whoever up top where we spurn 50 chances and lose 1-0. A striker doesn't magically fix that.

Of course there are days that they do save the day (Aguero especially), but ultimately when that happens is unpredictable; even Ronaldo and Messi got it wrong in certain important fixtures.

There are also a lot of fixtures whereby we miss a lot of chances, but none of them fell to the striker, so the striker himself couldn't have made a difference (despite what posters would say).

I used to think it was interesting that from 17-18 through to 19-20, our goals per game wasn't affected by who started up top.


The truth is, in order for our collective goals per game to substantially increase we need a player who BOTH improves team play AND is a great goalscorer. I can see the appeal specifically with Kane from Pep's perspective for that reason. But a goalscorer alone won't change much. Torres is a great finisher but he doesn't help with build up play as much as others may, so that's one thing. Last season we used false 9s, and whoever was up front didn't score much but everyone else did.

Ronaldo or Haaland MAY have broken the mould this season because of just how good a scorer they both are. But really just signing a good forward or a strong goalscorer doesn't change much.

People may say that we'd need a goalscorer in a tight game, but again you lose something in those games if they can't help in the build up too well.

We could do with a pure striker just for the sake of variety, but a striker for the sake of it won't magically change anything as you say. Just like a normal LB wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Agree with you pretty much completely.

To keep it simple, I just don't think there is such a big distinction between our wingers and a "number 9" anymore.
 
bluenova said:
Agree with you pretty much completely.

To keep it simple, I just don't think there is such a big distinction between our wingers and a "number 9" anymore.
Click to expand...
Sterling scored 31 goals two seasons ago. The team last season scored at the same rate it always did once we went false 9.

The best player in the team is and always will be Pep Guardiola.
 
bluenova said:
Not sure it does :)

It suggests that Ronaldo shoots from outside the box more than Sterling's small sample, but nowhere near enough to overturn Sterling's advantage, and all of them still shoot mostly inside the box. (I see it about 2/3 inside for Ronaldo, 3 out of 4 for Kane)

You're right, Sterling's is too small a sample - just 16 shots. It would only take two or three long shot to make those similar to Kane and Ronaldo.

Even if shooting randomly from outside the box with little chance of scoring was a good thing (it clearly isn't and City players are obviously encouraged not to do it), then discounting those shots still doesn't make Ronaldo or Kane's goals/shot ratio better than Sterling.

So, not only does he make more of his chances, there is less evidence he gives up possession with random low xG potshots as often.
Click to expand...

It's a small sample that supports basic knowledge about how City play compared to how other teams do, plus knowledge of Kane, Ronaldo and Sterling's abilities.

We eshew long shots and try to work better openings. Some other teams and players take a shot when they get chance.

Sterling rarely shoots from further out than 20 yards, that's just from watching him.

That is despite him not being an out and out forward like they are, but maybe it shows the mindset of Ronaldo and Kane also in that they feel the team looks to them for goals so they take shots when they get chance.

I can try and find more at some point, but finding things is a bit pot luck.

I like Sterling but he's at a bit of a crossroads in terms of how he ends up perceived. He could end up viewed as a great, but he needs to get to the point where we all think he'll score when gets a one on one, rather than all covering our eyes expecting him to miss.
 
mattcity5 said:
It's a small sample that supports basic knowledge about how City play compared to how other teams do, plus knowledge of Kane, Ronaldo and Sterling's abilities.

We eshew long shots and try to work better openings. Some other teams and players take a shot when they get chance.

Sterling rarely shoots from further out than 20 yards, that's just from watching him.

That is despite him not being an out and out forward like they are, but maybe it shows the mindset of Ronaldo and Kane also in that they feel the team looks to them for goals so they take shots when they get chance.

I can try and find more at some point, but finding things is a bit pot luck.

I like Sterling but he's at a bit of a crossroads in terms of how he ends up perceived. He could end up viewed as a great, but he needs to get to the point where we all think he'll score when gets a one on one, rather than all covering our eyes expecting him to miss.
Click to expand...
I found the stats on whoscored. For the seasons I picked Sterling approx shot from 80% inside the box, Kane 70% and Ronaldo 60%. While it's a definite difference, it doesn't affect Sterling's position as the most clinical finisher.

At worst for Sterling (if you assume all the shots outside the box weren't scored), then Sterling would still have a better goals/shots ratio than Kane and a much better one than Ronaldo.

If Ronaldo or Kane were scoring from outside the box regularly, then Sterling's finishing looks even better in comparison.

If they aren't, then not only are they statistically poorer finishers than Sterling, but they also waste possession with pot shots much more regularly :)

Halo/Horns - People think Sterling is poor, so see the misses. With other players they only see the goals.
 
jrb said:
I appreciate we've only played canon fodder so far and real tests are to come against Leicester, Chlsea, and the Coach Wreckers.

But we've already scored 10 goals. The most in the league. If we'd played our best team against Spurs, we'd have won that as well. And should have won it. We also have goals in KDB and Foden to come.

The false 9 works because we have no striker, and no focal point up front, so other (managers) and teams aren't sure who to mark or who pick up when we attack. Our playing system is fluid, with players interchanging and moving about freely when we attack.
Click to expand...
We haven’t played a False 9 this season. Torres has played as a striker in all three games.

If anything, Jesus has been playing as a “false winger” because he’s been the one dropping in here there and everywhere, with Grealish and Torres being quite rigid in their positions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bluenova said:
I'd be happy to agree with you if you can provide some stats to back it up.

Most people would (and this is entirely understandable, given the way they're talked about in the media) "expect" those players to be more clinical than Sterling, but that isn't the case.

And if you take out penalties, it's even more stark Kane's shots per goal shoots up to 6.3 and Ronaldo's Shots per goal shoots up to 8.7 - nearly double that of Sterling. If that's down to long shots I'd be very surprised.
Click to expand...
Can't take out penalties - it's a big Achilles heel from us and has cost us in some very big games. if CL Final had gone to pens, I would have put us as a significant underdog.
 
bluenova said:
I found the stats on whoscored. For the seasons I picked Sterling approx shot from 80% inside the box, Kane 70% and Ronaldo 60%. While it's a definite difference, it doesn't affect Sterling's position as the most clinical finisher.

At worst for Sterling (if you assume all the shots outside the box weren't scored), then Sterling would still have a better goals/shots ratio than Kane and a much better one than Ronaldo.

If Ronaldo or Kane were scoring from outside the box regularly, then Sterling's finishing looks even better in comparison.

If they aren't, then not only are they statistically poorer finishers than Sterling, but they also waste possession with pot shots much more regularly :)

Halo/Horns - People think Sterling is poor, so see the misses. With other players they only see the goals.
Click to expand...
I love Sterling but stats can be misleading and can lead to outcomes that aren’t necessarily true. Sterling’s goals per shot maybe better than Ronaldo and Kane’s but noone truly believes he’s a better finisher than both? What will help Sterling here is his movement is WORLD CLASS and the way we create chances compared to Spurs and Juve. How many chances do we get right infront of goal or open goal tap ins because Pep had to figure out how to get to the 6 yard box because our finishing was bad? Sterling is brilliant but he’s not a world class finisher but he is a great goal scorer especially for us with the volume of chances we create and how good the chances are. We do need a number 9 for them half chances Aguero or if we got him Kane would take. Hoping Torres is the answer I’m just worried about them tight big games.
 
lasereyes said:
Can't take out penalties - it's a big Achilles heel from us and has cost us in some very big games. if CL Final had gone to pens, I would have put us as a significant underdog.
Click to expand...
You can if you are comparing a player who doesn't take them with one who does.

Even with their recent woes City have been scoring above 6 out of 10 penalties. Ronaldo and Kane score just over 8 out of 10, but then Gundogan and De Bruyne score 8 out of 10. (As an aside Ronaldo is not as good as Bruno, so if he insists on taking them, that's a bonus for City!)

So, you're comparing a chance with a scoring ratio of between 0.6 and 0.8 with their non-penalty scoring ratios of 0.11 (Ronaldo) and 0.21 (Sterling).

Clearly anyone taking penalties is going to push up their ratios. Having an extra good penalty taker would be useful, but if we leave it to Gundogan and De Bruyne, then any difference is likely to be minimal.
 
jimmybarnesblue said:
I love Sterling but stats can be misleading and can lead to outcomes that aren’t necessarily true. Sterling’s goals per shot maybe better than Ronaldo and Kane’s but noone truly believes he’s a better finisher than both? What will help Sterling here is his movement is WORLD CLASS and the way we create chances compared to Spurs and Juve. How many chances do we get right infront of goal or open goal tap ins because Pep had to figure out how to get to the 6 yard box because our finishing was bad? Sterling is brilliant but he’s not a world class finisher but he is a great goal scorer especially for us with the volume of chances we create and how good the chances are. We do need a number 9 for them half chances Aguero or if we got him Kane would take. Hoping Torres is the answer I’m just worried about them tight big games.
Click to expand...
Where do you think most players score? They're nearly all near the goal, even if some shot wastefully from further out more often :)

Stats can be misleading, but what they do show is that there isn't a player out there who is going to finish 100% of those half-chances, which is what a lot of people expect. They see the miss near goal, and assume a Kane or Ronaldo would have definitely scored.

As I've shown quite clearly, with stats over three whole seasons (including a "poor" one from Sterling, so no cherry picking), is that the "natural number 9"s miss a shed load of chances too. Even in big games :)

If they didn't then our "natural number 9" Sergio - one of the best of all time - would have been scoring 60 goals a season, and scoring in all our finals/semis etc., which wasn't the case.
 
bluenova said:
Where do you think most players score? They're nearly all near the goal, even if some shot wastefully from further out more often :)

Stats can be misleading, but what they do show is that there isn't a player out there who is going to finish 100% of those half-chances, which is what a lot of people expect. They see the miss near goal, and assume a Kane or Ronaldo would have definitely scored.

As I've shown quite clearly, with stats over three whole seasons (including a "poor" one from Sterling, so no cherry picking), is that the "natural number 9"s miss a shed load of chances too. Even in big games :)

If they didn't then our "natural number 9" Sergio - one of the best of all time - would have been scoring 60 goals a season, and scoring in all our finals/semis etc., which wasn't the case.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s true, the players that miss the most ‘big chances’ are usually the ones considered the best finishers. And everyone does miss chances I just feel we need a killer like Kane is and Aguero was for them games (Liverpool 18/19 Sergs goal there only a true WC goal finisher would score). But overall I love Sterling and his contribution and im not slagging him off I just think having a true finisher in the squad would improve is.
Great stats and posts btw :)
 
bluenova said:
I found the stats on whoscored. For the seasons I picked Sterling approx shot from 80% inside the box, Kane 70% and Ronaldo 60%. While it's a definite difference, it doesn't affect Sterling's position as the most clinical finisher.

At worst for Sterling (if you assume all the shots outside the box weren't scored), then Sterling would still have a better goals/shots ratio than Kane and a much better one than Ronaldo.

If Ronaldo or Kane were scoring from outside the box regularly, then Sterling's finishing looks even better in comparison.

If they aren't, then not only are they statistically poorer finishers than Sterling, but they also waste possession with pot shots much more regularly :)

Halo/Horns - People think Sterling is poor, so see the misses. With other players they only see the goals.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree there's definitely some of that going on, but if you really think Sterling is as clinical as Kane, then why did we ever try so hard for him?

I do like Sterling, but he has a history of missing a fairly considerable amount of one on ones and even tap ins. I'm sure that Kane and Ronaldo also miss them, but not quite so often. Of course, Sterling has a lot of qualities where he is superior to either or them too.

Interested in seeing how Torres deleops upfront. Needs a bit more strength perhaps and more experience there, but he looks a more natural finisher so far. It'd be good to see him have 5 or 6 games on the run in the same position and see if this helps his confidence too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pam
Watching an old City Spurs game and Aguero and Negredo are tearing it up. Proper old strikers. I wasn't that aware of Negredo when he arrived, but what a striker at that time he was. Mind you Navas looking world class as well (6-0 finished). Is there no overlooked gem like Negredo out there? Two strikers running into the box, different days.
 
mattcity5 said:
Oh I agree there's definitely some of that going on, but if you really think Sterling is as clinical as Kane, then why did we ever try so hard for him?

I do like Sterling, but he has a history of missing a fairly considerable amount of one on ones and even tap ins. I'm sure that Kane and Ronaldo also miss them, but not quite so often. Of course, Sterling has a lot of qualities where he is superior to either or them too.

Interested in seeing how Torres deleops upfront. Needs a bit more strength perhaps and more experience there, but he looks a more natural finisher so far. It'd be good to see him have 5 or 6 games on the run in the same position and see if this helps his confidence too.
Click to expand...
I think Kane is great, and we also have to bear in mind that Sterling was potentially going to leave.

The point is not to say one is better, but that this theory that there is a "number 9" who can be the difference in the very few big games we lose each season, doesn't hold water. Even the best of these players need a few chances to score, and the likelihood they'd be the ones to make the breakthrough, rather than the combined goals of our other forwards, just doesn't hold up. As someone posted above, the players who miss the most "big chances" are often those players we consider the best natural finishers.

I'd like to see Torres' progress (I think Delap is too young/raw right now for more than cameos), but I also think that the longer we play without a "number 9" the better our other forwards will get. They're all clever players, and we saw with Gundogan, that if he's told to get in the box and score he can do it. Sterling has become one of the most productive forward players in the world in the last few years, and Pep is already suggesting that he thinks Grealish can emulate that. Exciting times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top