3) You are assuming that "record" means from the science department. And it's a similar thing as a stats since they will make stats after all. And also After all LVG only talked about his goal scoring record without mentioning other things. Welbeck at 23, mostly from left, scored 10 goals in 36 games. RvP at 23, up front, scored 13 goals in 31 games. It's not a huge different. Harsh and very odd comment from van Gaal in my opinion.
1, 2, 4, 6) You don't pick an unfit player ahead of the fit one during competitive games especially when it is the beginning of season. RVP was unfit. Welbeck was fit and has the ability to offer something but he sat on the bench even though Welbeck played better than the unfit RVP in those two games. Should bench and rest RVP and give Welbeck his chance. That was clearly the best time for him to get his chance. LVG sold Welbeck without giving him a fair chance as a starter in the league.
5) Funny because if you watch the game then you won't assume LVG thought that, because Welbeck gave and offered more things and more dangerous when he came on against Burnley and Sunderland.
6) Talking about Moyes here, he gave Welbeck chance and Welbeck took it by scoring 6 goals in 7 games. But what happen after that? Sat on the bench straight away for two months. I can't call it as a fair chance for inform players.
7) You are missing my point about RVP being unfit. I thought he said RVP is fitter than ever he believes during our last press conference which is a few days ago not before the Burnley and Sunderland game. And I'm sure I used "was" which is clearly I was not talking about RVP condition for this week.
8) And he still rates him
Your first paragraph:
You are the one who assumed record meant 'stats of goals', I merely pointed out he did not state this and so to him record could mean anything. Somehow you then twisted it to make it sound as though I said it's from the science department, well read it again:
3) He said in the press conference 'record' not 'stats of goals', for him record could mean just about anything. His sports science department would have analysed his performances when played central, the scientists will be some of the best in the world.
The sports science department bit is me merely telling you they would have analysed his performances, if you disagree with this then Louis van Gaal disagrees with you because he has stated several times video analysis is very important.
In that statistic you did, how many minutes did RVP play and Welbeck too? If you want to use statistics to try and back up a point then do it properly, state the goals per minute ratios but also how many of those games each player started and how many he came on as a sub. Even when you do this there will be flaws to the statistic so if you want somebody to take it seriously get as much data as possible, controlling for as many variables as possible.
As of now those stats mean nothing because RVP could have played a lot of games but as a sub (not saying he did just pointing out your useless stat), he was 23 in 2006, Henry for instance did not join Barcelona in 2007 and also that season Adebayor played 44 games.
Statistics are useless when used how you have, taking one stat and trying to prove a point, without any respect for context. You must delve into much deeper than you have, right now there are several variables you have not controlled for.
Perhaps Louis van Gaal has a different opinion to yourself because his sports science have actually gone into depth with their analysis whereas you have merely taken simple stats out of context, is this possible?
Your second paragraph:
I said this in the previous post but I suppose I must repeat myself. You said RVP is unfit, Louis van Gaal said RVP is fitter than ever he believes. If you expect me to take your opinion over Louis van Gaal's, do you not think this is an unreasonable expectation?
As of now your statement RVP is unfit is contradicted by Louis van Gaal.
Clearly Louis thought RVP was fit enough to perform. And also would be more effective than Welbeck, there is no way Louis van Gaal would have selected RVP if he was unfit and to suggest as such is an insult to the manager.
Your third paragraph:
Again, Louis van Gaal would simply say 'that's your opinion, not mine'. We do not know what he is looking for nor whether Welbeck performed this to a higher standard.
We do know Louis van Gaal was not impressed (enough) by Welbeck so he probably was not (in Louis' opinion) as effective as you imply.
Your fourth paragraph:
You miss the point in its entirety. I can explain it in more depth so it's clear:
David Moyes spent the season evaluating players but in hindsight that was not a good decision. Louis van Gaal in a shorter time frame has concluded who meets his standard and who does not, he now has assembled a better squad by being decisive.
The point is that why on earth should Louis van Gaal say no to Falcao and give Welbeck more time as a striker on the rare chance he might be better than Falcao? I mean where is the logic and how do you expect the man to get top four doing this...
I disagree completely with this point and I think others would back me on this.
BTW - next time do not change the point you are replying to but reply directly to the point I made.
Your fifth paragraph:
He is even fitter now because he has played a few games but that does not mean he was unfit when selected previously, simply less fit than he is now but still fit enough to be selected back then.
Your sixth paragraph:
Yes but he rated him below Rooney and RVP for striker position just like Moyes and now also Louis van Gaal rates him lower than RVP, Rooney, Falcao and Wilson.
Tyson had an amazing slip and jab, and I've seen him knock people down with a jab.
And then in his first 1-on-1 botch a chip finish. Did I do it right?