See Rory Jennings is backtracking already.
The twat.
See Rory Jennings is backtracking already.
The twat.
It's the lack of context that bewilders me.
If Haaland has two, ten or 200 touches, what does that statistic mean when presented in isolation?
What's the average amount of touches for a no.9?
Is there sone gold standard touches to goals ratio that we don't know about?
Or a minimum amount of touches he should be aiming for? Some target that means he's had a good game (presumably, even if he doesn't score)?
Of course there isn't because none of these things apply in the real world. The number of times a player touches the ball is only one component of their performance. Theoretically, a forward could never touch the ball in a game but have made the runs that created spaces for ten goals.
So why go out of the way to focus on the number of touches? And why only for Haaland? How come he is the only forward ever whose success is to be measured in touches rather than goals?
I could maybe understand as part of a wider analysis, if he wasn't playong well or wasn't scoring but using a random statistic as a backhanded insinuation that he's not playing well - when the kid is actually on fire - is a new low.
They’re trying to unsettle him, hoping it becomes the narrative and becomes so loud that it filters to the player that our club doesn’t care enough about him to give him the fucking ball. Outlandish as it sounds shit like this is part of the agenda, make some negative bullshit up about our club and repeat ad nauseum until it becomes normal and factual to the Neanderthals out there.If he’s the first forward to score 100 league goals with less than 500 touches will any of us be upset? It’s just stupidity on their part.
If he’s the first forward to score 100 league goals with less than 500 touches will any of us be upset? It’s just stupidity on their part.
Keep going Murphy you baldy little Scouse t****
Was that the game when the pitch was an absolute mud bath? If it was I was at that game. My older brother was over from Australia (who is a huge blue) and we went. A long way to travel to watch that!
It's all based on what the media fan boy Harry kane does. Alot of the time he drops into that number 10 position and gets plenty of touches so that's the bench mark all good strikers will be judged onIt's the lack of context that bewilders me.
If Haaland has two, ten or 200 touches, what does that statistic mean when presented in isolation?
What's the average amount of touches for a no.9?
Is there sone gold standard touches to goals ratio that we don't know about?
Or a minimum amount of touches he should be aiming for? Some target that means he's had a good game (presumably, even if he doesn't score)?
Of course there isn't because none of these things apply in the real world. The number of times a player touches the ball is only one component of their performance. Theoretically, a forward could never touch the ball in a game but have made the runs that created spaces for ten goals.
So why go out of the way to focus on the number of touches? And why only for Haaland? How come he is the only forward ever whose success is to be measured in touches rather than goals?
I could maybe understand as part of a wider analysis, if he wasn't playong well or wasn't scoring but using a random statistic as a backhanded insinuation that he's not playing well - when the kid is actually on fire - is a new low.
Bournemouth cf touched it at least 10 times on Saturday……If he’s the first forward to score 100 league goals with less than 500 touches will any of us be upset? It’s just stupidity on their part.
The baseball ground was always a mud bath.
But no , the 6.0 was early season, Derby had a good team Wright scored and it was packed as Sardines in the City end.
Another great following in the says when you could take more than 3000 away.