New striker?

[bluenova]

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.

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.

 

[bluenova]

Aguero was another player who took a lot of shots per game, just to add to the discussion.

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?

 

[mccity]

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?

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.

 

[bluenova]

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.

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.

 

[mccity]

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.

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.

 

[mattcity5]

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.

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.

 

[bluenova]

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.

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.

 

[mccity]

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

Well said. I find Son to be the most prominent example of the other side of the coin (I like him but he's overrated).

 

[FromPollockToSilva]

Well said. I find Son to be the most prominent example of the other side of the coin (I like him but he's overrated).

Same. Last season was the first time in four seasons that Son outscored Sterling in the league, but apparently he'd fix all of our problems if we signed him

 

[Deleted member 77198]

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.

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.