GboroRam Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 That figure unfortunately was beyond us financially, Glick again stated the other night we are running over budget. We could have gone for him instead of B Davies. About the same vaulation. Clearly Nigel just didn't fancy taking a punt on a League 2 player (or felt he'd got better options available). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 That's just a silly thing to say. We spent more than that several times over the summer. Let's compare Tyson and Le Fondre though, at League Two level that is: Name - Games - Goals (Goals per 46 games) Le Fondre - 293 - 122 (19.4) Tyson - 57 - 33 (26.6) And for fun: Liam Dickinson - 33 - 94 (16.1) Both Tyson and Dickinson were top strikers at League Two, and yes I realise that Le Fondre is a different type of player, however with the before mentioned apparent attitude problems its fairly obvious why the club (and many others) didn't want to take the risk. Cant see what Dickinson has to do with it, but anyhow, as Tyson has failed at this level (goalscoring) and Le Fondre has neverplayed at it, then Le Fondre is surely less of a gamble ? Im not up to speed with the attitude problems ? Reading did not sign ALF until after the season started, we bought our last player in....when ? We are down to Theo as our only fit C/F who has played at this level, we have no fit right back, and you say its a silly thing to say ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Im sorry but the statistics you've quoted for Le Fondre are wrong. He's scored 114 goals from 192 starts, thats a goal ratio of 0.59 goals per game [url=http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=38355]http://www.soccerbas...player_id=38355 I'm sorry but I think you'll find that your statistics are wrong. The statistics I offered were in all competitions rather than just league and importantly I also included sub appearances, hence the larger number of appearances. You're cherry picking data and hence unreasonably biasing it. As for only being down to Theo I think that Maguire and Ball might take a bit of offense to that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Adding 88 sub appearances into the equation isnt biasing things then? No, it isn't as they were required for him to reach that goal tally. The issue exists that there isn't an extra "sub goals" stat and as such you can't differentiate goals that were scored from starts or subs. Because of this if you say that he scored 114 in 192 starts and hence scored at a rate 0.59. That is biasing the data greatly with goals that may have been scored from substitute appearances. Whilst some of those appearances would have been for only 10-15 minutes if he score say ~30 in them that would change the value to 84 in 192 starts which would only be 0.438 goals per game or 20.125 over a season. Since you credited him with 0.59 goals per game, which is 27.3 goals per season this could have, if the guess is even in the right ball park, have accounted for as much as 7 goals over a season, turning him from a good League Two striker into an amazing one by bringing in goals from appearances that never could have been. This is further demonstrated when one looks at his best goals per season total of 27 from 47 (including playoffs, actually I'm fairly sure that's got to be an error). He has in fact only cracked 20 goals in a season twice at League Two level, which whilst good is hardly the greatest achievement ever. So yeah, to put that simply no it isn't biasing as all you're doing is including all the data. Without being able to take out goals scored as a substitute the data requires that sub appearances remain for any kind of goal per game calculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jourdan Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I suspect le Fondre's 'attitude problems' are just a myth. There's never been a shortage of interest in the player, just clubs unwilling to pay a rather inflated asking price put on his head by Rotherham once he was tied down to a long-term contract. Rochdale were not in the same position financially to play hard ball in August 2009. It was only natural once his contract started to tick down at the Don Valley, the asking price would depreciate and then the buying club would be in a position of strength. With le Fondre, I don't think it's ever been a question of ability or attitude, but more a question is it worth risking north of £1m for a player only proven at League 2 level? And as for the Tyson v le Fondre debate, le Fondre is a natural goalscorer and is still developing as a player, so if you were going to pin your hopes on one of them to score 15-20 at a level, it'd be le Fondre. Infact, I'd say le Fondre will be into double figures at this level by the new year. For me at this level, I've always seen Tyson as a winger or the second striker who might chip in with the occasional goal and use his pace to pull defences out of position and create space for the other more clinical forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 As for only being down to Theo I think that Maguire and Ball might take a bit of offense to that statement. Your counting Maguire as a C/F now ? And the mighty Callum Ball who has scored and played erm....how many times in the first team ? I was actually contemplating at the time if to call Theo a centre forward, but as it didnt have the word footballer in there I suppose you can class him as one 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> As you like your stats, if you take all of Derbys fit players, and add up the goals they scored does it come to more than Le Fondre has scored at the grand age of 24 ? I am guessing, because I cant be bothered to look it up, that its a close call ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Theo, Hendrick, Cwyka, B Davies, Bryson, Shackell, Ward, Maguire, Kilbane and Croft have 324 career goals between them in comparison to Le Fondre's 122. Importantly the vast majority of those goals were scored at Championship level or above as compared to Le Fondre's 122 at League Two level. Not close at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Right let's try and put this one to bed. Your right to a point. I havent included all the data in the equation, which biases it in Le Fondre's favour. Lets assume say an average substitute appearance of 15 minutes. 88 subs appearances x 15mins equates to 14/15 full matches which needs to be factored in. Basically ive understated his matched by 14/15. However on the flip side you have overstated his appearances. These 88 sub appearances arent full appearances, they really equate to 14/15 proper appearances. You therefore need to revise you appearances down by 73/74 Ive undersated his matchs by 14/15, you've overstated them by 73/74. Id say i was guilty of less bias. A better statistic would be minutes played / goals scored. On a different note. Theo signed for £300,000, Le Fondre Signed for £350,000. I hope im proved wrong but Le Fondre looks the better deal. In conclusion Whilst some sub appearances are only 15 odd minutes, the vast majority are around 30 minute with the average normally being around that 25-30 minute mark. Taking the upper limit gives that as another 29.3 games which would make the revised rate to be 0.515 or 23.7 goals per season. This however is also miss leading as a player who comes on is generally fresher and you get the "super sub" effect where some players in fact only really perform as substitutes. In any case in order for the data to work the best it can you'd want that data on goals per sub appearance. In any case, taking the goals per season there might be about fair for him currently. Those being League Two goals of course. Sometimes players can step up, but we'll see. There are other things in play though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Well thats a lot more than I thought, them 10 players have scored nearly 3 times what he has done, with the vast majority at championship level as well, must admit didnt know that Davies, Bryson, Maguire, Ward, Croft, Theo had got so many in this division, thought they were mostly lower league as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laney1983 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Le fondre plays for reading, lambert plays for southampton and austin plays for burnley..........surely thats the end of it! No point in saying we shud have signed them. Why not just support the players we have........? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 If you want picture book goals that your granny could score, stick to FIFA 12, if you want a player that is in the right place at the right time and don't care if it comes off his arse as long as the ball goes in the net the he is your man. People quite understandably question why a player who has scored 4 in 7 so far, and goals throughout his career was not looked at even though we are crying out for this sort of player. You mention Tyson as being the fox in the box, yet he has not set the world alight recently in terms of goals has he, the difference between the 2? Well one was free and the other 350k, anything above £3.50 and we are out of the running. Sorry, the point I was trying to make is that as soon as a player some people think we ought to have bought scores against us, they're up in arms. If Le Fondre hadn't scored against us this thread would not have appeared. What I was saying is that neither of his goals were remarkable in any way (other than the first being a fluke) and did not warrant a "why oh why didn't we buy him" kind of response. Le Fondre might score 20 goals this season, he might score 5, none of us know. All I was trying to say is that until he has had a season, or even half a season, it's very difficult to say how good he is. As for Tyson and being 'a fox in the box', I said that was presumably what he was bought to do, not what he is; there's a big difference. And at this rate we'll never know!! Funny you say that people question why we hadn't gone after someone who has scored four this season. We had, he's called Theo. Granted, he hasn't got the goals Le Fondre has at lower league, but that's a bit of an irrelevance in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You've took the upper limit that an average subs appearance is 30 minutes!!!!! Pmsl. Sorry but i cant take you seriously anymore. As a matter of interest do you ever concede a point? If we look at a weekend of League two this season (the week of October 1st, it was the first one that appeared) had an average substitution time of 68', this including the substitutions designed to merely run down the clock. If we assume that Le Fondre wasn't used as Clock fodder and we remove all substitutions that were made from the 85th minute onwards (it was an average of 1 a game over 10 games) one gets a new time of 62'. The average time at the whistle was 94'37", which we shall approximate as 95' for the sake of argument. This then gives us that the average with all the time wasting subs included is 27 minutes whilst the one without the time wasting is 33. Even in the case that Le Fondre did get used as a time wasting sub the difference between the 30 minutes I guessed at for the sake of argument and the 27 minutes found from a recent randomly chosen League Two weekend are barely different. In fact 3 minutes over those 2.93 matches only changes the result 1.35% to 0.521 goals per game or 24.0 goals per game. Also, whilst injury time is quite significant over a 27-33 minute sub appearance, it is not particularly important over a full 90 minutes. That is, the over 90 minutes the 94'37" makes a 5% difference whilst for the sub appearances without correcting for the time wasting subs it makes a 22.7% difference. That is, it is actually important to the value, unlike over the entire course of the game. There is also an argument that as there can only be 11 players on the pitch and the average sub appearance over an average ~95' game (as mentioned before), if we have our 3 substitutes having on average a 27' minute sub apperance we can define a "player minutes". That is, as there are 11 players and ~95' minutes we have 95*11=1045' of player time. We then take 27*3 for the subs leaving 964. Division by the 11 players gives an average 87'38" appearance for an outfield player. That is, in fact you can form an argument to say the average player will play less than 90' a game. With both these points in mind it is a good approximation to use an average 90' per game for the goals calculation, but include injury time for sub appearance time. As such we can safely say that Le Fondre is around a ~24 goal a season striker at League Two level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Sorry, the point I was trying to make is that as soon as a player some people think we ought to have bought scores against us, they're up in arms. If Le Fondre hadn't scored against us this thread would not have appeared. What I was saying is that neither of his goals were remarkable in any way (other than the first being a fluke) and did not warrant a "why oh why didn't we buy him" kind of response. Le Fondre might score 20 goals this season, he might score 5, none of us know. All I was trying to say is that until he has had a season, or even half a season, it's very difficult to say how good he is. As for Tyson and being 'a fox in the box', I said that was presumably what he was bought to do, not what he is; there's a big difference. And at this rate we'll never know!! Funny you say that people question why we hadn't gone after someone who has scored four this season. We had, he's called Theo. Granted, he hasn't got the goals Le Fondre has at lower league, but that's a bit of an irrelevance in my opinion. Fair enough, I have nothing against any of the players we currenlty have, and all could turn into world beaters, but the point I was trying to make was that once again we are struggling for forward players, something that seems to be a common theme over the past few years here. As we havent got big money to spend on a proven goalscorer, the only way we are going to find one, is by buying from the lower leagues, and at £350k he would have fitted that spec, but IMO we had a budget that got revised through the transfer market meaning that even a player @ 350k was out of our reach, all guess work of course 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 An 18 year old Theo Robinson hit 13 goals at League Two level whilst a 20 year old Theo Robinson hit 13 at League One level. To compare that to Le Fondre, at the same age he only managed 4 at League Two level and a 20 year old Le Fondre only managed 7! It wasn't until he was about the same age as we signed Theo that he beat his League Two record of 13. Hardly means anything now, but it is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 An 18 year old Theo Robinson hit 13 goals at League Two level whilst a 20 year old Theo Robinson hit 13 at League One level. To compare that to Le Fondre, at the same age he only managed 4 at League Two level and a 20 year old Le Fondre only managed 7! It wasn't until he was about the same age as we signed Theo that he beat his League Two record of 13. Hardly means anything now, but it is interesting. As Theo has scored c8 since then are you saying he is going backward in his goal scoring, whilst Le Fondre is getting better ? 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Stastics for time wasting subs, statistics for non time wasting subs, lol. This is a wind up, yeah? No, as said above including all subs from that weekend the average sub appearance time was 27 minutes, extremely close to the 30 minutes that I used and within the 25-30 minute range I mentioned. That 3 minute offers little to no difference as demonstrated. To summarise; as a matter of interest do you ever concede a point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Fair enough, I have nothing against any of the players we currenlty have, and all could turn into world beaters, but the point I was trying to make was that once again we are struggling for forward players, something that seems to be a common theme over the past few years here. As we havent got big money to spend on a proven goalscorer, the only way we are going to find one, is by buying from the lower leagues, and at £350k he would have fitted that spec, but IMO we had a budget that got revised through the transfer market meaning that even a player @ 350k was out of our reach, all guess work of course 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> I agree completely that unlike the others mentioned in this thread (Lambert and Austin) - Le Fondre appeared well within our budget and tbh I would have liked to have seen him in a Derby shirt because I think we lack and out and out goalscorer. The last point you raise is the most worrying if true, that a £50k player is out of our reach. It might not be of course; it's perfectly possible that we could afford him but Nigel felt that with Tyson, Robinson, Davies, Ward, Maguire and Cywka able to play in that position, another striker wasn't required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 We spent £400k on Maguire. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 We spent £400k on Maguire. Just saying. its starting to look a bit of a strange signing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 We spent £400k on Maguire. Just saying. Yeah, but Maguire’s probably happy with double the minimum wage whereas ALF would have expected the same salary he was getting at Rotherham. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.