acnumber9 will be here shortly to deny your stats
Darron Gibson - is he good enough for Everton?
- Thread starter Name Changed
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
You can't deny facts. Jut like his poor overall scoring record can't be denied. What can be said though are goals as a substitute being included? As apparently substitute appearances don't count.
Good research Pogue, impressive stats those.
You're like a broken fecking record. Repeatedly saying his goal-scoring record is poor won't make you any less wrong.
I didn't included substitute appearances for any of them. For obvious reasons. Obvious to most people, anyway.
You're like a broken fecking record. I didn't included substitute appearances for any of them. For obvious reasons. Obvious to most people, anyway.
You included the goals though didn't you? For obvious reasons.
Yes. For all of them.
Ridiculous how much hard work you are, to get the simplest point across. I have an easier time explaining to my 2 year old why he shouldn't stick sandwiches in the DVD player.
Pogue, stop being a dick. He's making a clear point - you included goals that Gibson scored after coming on as a sub (if any?), but didn't include sub appearances. That may (or may not) distort the figures. Certainly it doesn't give a very accurate idea of actual minutes on the pitch to goals.
So long as the same approach is applied to all the players concerned, then it won't distort the relative figures. The absolute ratio possibly, but not relative to each other.
I could add up games started plus sub appearances but that would bias the figures heavily against a young player on the fringes of the first team, with a relatively low total of games and a high proportion of sub cameos, compared to games started.
Goal per minute played would be ideal but I've no idea how to find out how many minutes they've all played. In the absence of information about minutes played the simplest and fairest way to compare is to tot up the games started.
Why not just discount the goals scored when coming on as a sub for all players? Including them distorts the figures in favour of a player who comes on as a substitute more often, it is fairer to only include goals when starting.
Yes. That's an option.
As far as I can work out Gibson's scored a grand total of one goal, coming off the bench (against Bolton). That would reduce his tally to 8 in 28 or 0.29 goals/game.
I have absolutely no idea how many goals the other scored as subs but let's assume it's infrequently enough to leave their goals/game ratios unchanged.
A good way to do it is to assume an average of 80 minutes for each start, and an average of 20 minutes for each sub appearance.
Sounds like in this case it wouldn't change the data very much.
The relative figures are potentially quite distorted anyway for comparison purposes, due to the small number of games Gibson has played in and the proportion of these that were in early cup rounds against relatively weak opposition.
If you look at the games he's actually scored in, then this potential source of bias doesn't really hold up. Posted this yesterday.
If anything, the higher the standard of opposition, the more likely he is to score.
I do agree that the biggest flaw in all of this is that you're comparing someone who's started just under thirty games, with players who've started 100s. So I don't actually believe Gibson really is a bigger goal-threat than Scholes and Robson, despite what the stats might indicate.
I was really just posting these figures to counter the argument that's he's not a regular goal-scorer from central midfield, when it's evident that this is exactly what he is (for all the other weaknesses in his game).
Yep, fair enough. He scores goals.
Shame he isn't very good.
Shame he isn't very good.
Pogue
Are you trying to claim he's as good as Keane, Robson or Scholes?
Are you trying to claim he's as good as Keane, Robson or Scholes?
I don't understand what the big fuss is in the thread or why we're still debating Gibson's goalscoring record - when it has just been proven he does score goals?
It is pretty weak of the "anti-Gibson" brigade to argue a moot point, especially against probably Gibson's "best" (IMO anyway - shooting / scoring) quality, especially when there are other things Gibson is much worse at!
Pass on my regards.
Wouldn't be like you to use a mildly amusing insult to cover up for the fact you're making a poorly thought out point. You can't discount sub appearances and then count goals score in those games. It's means your stats that you're trying to prove your point with our inactivate. That should be simple enough to understand. Doubtless you'll reply with another half arsed attempt at humour to deflect from the point.
Another point to make here with your stats Pogue. You're using players like Scholes and Fletcher's career stats. You're not using all of Gibson's career. Another reason why the argument doesn't hold up using those stats.
I'm comparing their whole career for United.
Should I include Keane's from his time at Nott Forest? Ince at West Ham?
You really are nit-picking to an absolutely ridiculous extent, just because you refuse to accept an obvious point. Darron Gibson is a regular goal-scorer from midfield.
It's that kind of pig-headedness which ruins debate on here.
There's a few players at United who need to either shape up or risk being out in the cold, but I really think it's probably too late for Gibson.
He's been given chances for a couple of years now, and unlike say Evans, his inconsistent/liability performances haven't been counter balanced by anything more assured. He's fifth choice by a long distance despite two of our midfielders being in terrible form, another not being allowed, and the fourth being over 35 years old.
We'll be needing to address that area in the summer so if he's not good enough now it's hard to see how he will be next season, unless we take a very big step in the wrong direction.
and he can feck off shooting from 40+ yards too. I don't care if Fergie tells him to shoot a lot. No one has ever scored from that far out so grow a fecking brain and stop trying it.
He's been given chances for a couple of years now, and unlike say Evans, his inconsistent/liability performances haven't been counter balanced by anything more assured. He's fifth choice by a long distance despite two of our midfielders being in terrible form, another not being allowed, and the fourth being over 35 years old.
We'll be needing to address that area in the summer so if he's not good enough now it's hard to see how he will be next season, unless we take a very big step in the wrong direction.
and he can feck off shooting from 40+ yards too. I don't care if Fergie tells him to shoot a lot. No one has ever scored from that far out so grow a fecking brain and stop trying it.
Have you even read the last few posts before posting?
Christ.
As for this bit of your post.
I'm afraid it's not simple enough to understand at all. Quite the opposite
If you're looking a true picture of how much of a goal threat they are it would be helpful. I guarantee if Gibson scored a bagful for Royal Antwerp and Wolves you would be using them to back up your argument. Because they do the opposite you ignore them. Why?
The debate was about why certain teams would buy Gibson and it was stated because goal scoring midfielders are priceless. When determining a players goal threat it might be wise to consider his whole record, not just when he's playing for a team as good as Utd were he's allowed to float around not really being involved in play an hit the odd long ranger. His record when playing for teams not as good as Utd is poor, he won't be playing for Utd when he leaves.
People who unwisely think they are amusing and resort to poor attempts at put downs when their point is exposed ruins treads for me.
Apologies, the Iphone's auto correct can be a pain in the arse. Your stats are inaccurate. You're only using a certain number of games but are using goals not scored in those games to give a better total.Have you even read the last few posts before posting?
Christ.
As for this bit of your post.
I'm afraid it's not simple enough to understand at all. Quite the opposite
fair enough. I can relate to that.I've addressed the rest of your post a while back, in a discussion with sinch.
Out of interest, is your iphone to blame for this bit too.
Only "exposed loin" does work quite well but it's not a phrase I've ever heard before in a discussion about football!
Pogue has proven that acnumber9's ascertion that Gibson is not a goalscoring central midfielder is not correct.
Off course we know that the opinion of all his other skills are open to debate and criticism, but really it cant be argued that as a central midfielder he chips in with goals
Off course we know that the opinion of all his other skills are open to debate and criticism, but really it cant be argued that as a central midfielder he chips in with goals
I've addressed the rest of your post a while back, in a discussion with sinch.
Out of interest, is your iphone to blame for this bit too.
Only "exposed loin" does work quite well but it's not a phrase I've ever heard before in a discussion about football!
It is, though I would like to take credit for it as when I read it back it made the post a lot more interesting for the neutral. I've fixed it though incase people actually I'd drifted off in a fantasy of your exposed loin.
I'm afraid he hasn't. Gibson has scored 11 goals in 107 games. Pogue is using the smaller sample size because it suits him to do so. Had Gibson not scored so few at Wolves and Royal Antwerp, in the second tier of Belgian football, I'm certain he would be using those in his stats.
Another way to look at it would be to ask the question if Gibson is such an obvious goal threat, why has he been hauled off at half time in his last two starts when Utd needed a goal? Especially as we've already decided that our whole midfield was poor in those games. Why wouldn't we leave the goal threat on?
Oh well. Never mind. I think I'll borrow that "exposed loin" phrase off you and use it again some time. I reckon it's got potential as a tactic to confuse the bejesus out of Chief when he's in full-on multiquote rant mode.
If that's going to be it's use then I'm all for it. I might continue to use it myself.
Again the stats do paint him in a positive light in terms of goals scored (9 goals in 28 starts), but if you put half of the goals into context it isn't really that impressive.
As I have said goals against Derby, Scunthorpe, Southampton, 2 vs a 2nd rate Spurs team and 1 against Hull when the league was already done and dusted skew those stats. The aforementioned teams gave him time and space to shoot on sight from the edge of the box. Against better defenders his shooting is usually nullified by tracking him back, and his lack of movement means that he isn't the most difficult to track back.
As I have said goals against Derby, Scunthorpe, Southampton, 2 vs a 2nd rate Spurs team and 1 against Hull when the league was already done and dusted skew those stats. The aforementioned teams gave him time and space to shoot on sight from the edge of the box. Against better defenders his shooting is usually nullified by tracking him back, and his lack of movement means that he isn't the most difficult to track back.
Even if you include spells where he was at Antwerp (as a 19 year old) and at Wolves (where he spent a lot of the time injured), it still equates to 1 goal every 10 games or so.
That is better than most modern central midfielders are chipping in, hence going back to my point that the likes of Aston Villa would find that very useful indeed. Capiche?
1 goal every 10 games or so means 3-4 league goals per season. That isn't what I would call a goalscoring midfielder.
A goal every ten games is not the record of a priceless goal scoring midfielder. It would seemingly put him in a bracket with Michael Carrick. I doubt anyone would describe him as a regular goalscorer. Comprende?
I'm sure if Scholes took on a shot as often as Gibson does, he'd still be able to bang in a few screamers each season too.
One of the most important aspects of being a forward thinking midfielder is decision making, and in a two man midfield you need a lot more than that in your locker to boot.
Being a goalscoring midfielder means feck all if you can't get the basics that come before that right.
One of the most important aspects of being a forward thinking midfielder is decision making, and in a two man midfield you need a lot more than that in your locker to boot.
Being a goalscoring midfielder means feck all if you can't get the basics that come before that right.
In comparison to most central midfielders playing the English game, i would say that he is
personally i believe his average would be better if he had a run of games
If they were the only goals he's scored you'd have a point but he's also scored against full-strength teams from Bayern Munich, West Ham and Bolton (the latter two away from home) Bottom line is, he has scored goals against tough opposition and he's scored in every competition he's played. He's proved himself to be a goal threat from central midfield. Which is a positive attribute of his game.
I don't know why people who don't rate him are getting hung up on this anyway. There's plenty of other flaws in his game for you to pick apart, if you're that way inclined.
Does anyone else think Gibson maybe suffers quite a bit because he's just not suited to the role he often ends up in at United?
I mean, using Lampard as an example...one of the most effective players in the league for Chelsea, but a lot of that is because the system they play, and his position, is taylored to his strengths. He doesn't have to compete in the middle third as such and can just concentrate on moving forwards and makking space for himself. Stick him in a midfield two for England and suddenly he's just Darron Gibson with a cockney accent.
I mean, using Lampard as an example...one of the most effective players in the league for Chelsea, but a lot of that is because the system they play, and his position, is taylored to his strengths. He doesn't have to compete in the middle third as such and can just concentrate on moving forwards and makking space for himself. Stick him in a midfield two for England and suddenly he's just Darron Gibson with a cockney accent.
Yes. He'd be better suited to shooting coach, not player.
Lampard has a proper engine on him. Gibson's biggest problem is that he is genuinely terrible off the ball.