Peter Crouch

[Reece]

What's provocative in that?

He calls players rubbish when Rafa ditches them but whoever he keeps he thinks are fantastic

It's provocative because it's aimed at getting Fredo to react in kind, which just results in more petty arguments.

[Sarb]

Ok then I apologise

[Reece]

Ok then I apologise

That sounded like it really came for the heart.

Look we're just trying to stop some of the sniping between individuals which seem to be dominating the forums recently, and would appreciate everyone's help in doing so

[Sarb]

That sounded like it really came for the heart.

Look we're just trying to stop some of the sniping between individuals which seem to be dominating the forums recently, and would appreciate everyone's help in doing so

No it's a genuine apology


Sorry Fredo

[Darkon]

But that's like concluding that Hull are better than Man Utd because they were ahead of them after 10 games.

It's surely fundamentally non-debatable that the more goals you score generally, the more chance you have of winning games. Are you actually disputing this mate?

I'm not saying the side who scores the most goals will always do the best (they usually do, but not always). But you DO stand more chance of winning games, if you score lots of goals. How is that even questionable?

I am not saying Hull are better than utd, but the number of goals scored does not get you a full picture.

Say man city is a good example this season, they score a lot of goals (nr 2 overall I think), but they concede and equally impressive amount of goals which gets them nowhere - the same goes with real as an example.

A good and solid defence can get you as far as a good attack. Which has proved immensly important for us since Rafa took over.

Of course there is no dispute you need to score at least 1 goal to win, but you only need to score 3 or 4 if your defence is dodgy. The only thing scoring many goals ensure is entertaining football - not necessarily wins.

I know you are very focussed on may, but as of dec. 8th we are the best team in the PL dispite scoring less goals than six other teams. Points tell you which team is best - not goals (which might work as a good indicator though)

[Sarb]

Was at the gym yesterday morning and was looking over at the MOTD repeat. They did an analysis of the Chavs game and our game. When we were attacking we only had one player in the box and probably one just outside it, but Blackburn had about 5 or 6 players back

When Chelsea were getitng forward they had 4 or 5 players in or around the box/danger area. That's why they score so many goals. I think overall they've got a much more attacking mentality but they've also got the balance generally right between attack and defence.

I think our approach to games is a little too negative to be honest

[wiw]

Was at the gym yesterday morning and was looking over at the MOTD repeat. They did an analysis of the Chavs game and our game. When we were attacking we only had one player in the box and probably one just outside it, but Blackburn had about 5 or 6 players back

When Chelsea were getitng forward they had 4 or 5 players in or around the box/danger area. That's why they score so many goals. I think overall they've got a much more attacking mentality but they've also got the balance generally right between attack and defence.

I think our approach to games is a little too negative to be honest

Our mentality will change as the season goes on though, it always does.

[dww]

Our mentality will change as the season goes on though, it always does.

Did I dream it or did Xabi say something along the lines that our style will develop as the season goes on in one of his post match interviews?

[bobbyfallon]

crouch - fantastic player. always rated him. badly missed this year

[wiw]

Did I dream it or did Xabi say something along the lines that our style will develop as the season goes on in one of his post match interviews?

Hmm..how recent are we talking? After the Blackburn game he said something like 'we can improve, esp going forward'. It always happens though, doesn't it? We always start off by building from the back, getting everything sorted and then slowly but surely start to get more adventurous

[Dhav]

I like Crouch, had a very good attitude when he first came and was struggling to cope with a big price tag and went on a scoring drought, he handled that a lot better than Keane has IMO. Not sure what to make of his last season, there are times when he played and really disappointed me with some lacklustre performances and seemingly half-hearted effort, but obviously he was frustrated at not starting games.

He seems like a genuine and humble lad with a great sense of humour and I wish him all the best and continued success, except when he's playing us. Always remember when he was asked what he'd be if he wasn't a footballer he replied by saying "a virgin"

Like DWW says though, he isn't the player we need going forward, but then again neither is Keane IMO.

[dww]

Hmm..how recent are we talking? After the Blackburn game he said something like 'we can improve, esp going forward'. It always happens though, doesn't it? We always start off by building from the back, getting everything sorted and then slowly but surely start to get more adventurous

After the Blackburn game. I distinctly remember him saying about us evolving the way we play. I know it has traditionally been how our seasons have gone but it was interesting especially in view of a/ the way recent games have gone and b/ the criticism of Rafa having limited, defensive tactics.

[Craig_H]

I am not saying Hull are better than utd, but the number of goals scored does not get you a full picture.

Say man city is a good example this season, they score a lot of goals (nr 2 overall I think), but they concede and equally impressive amount of goals which gets them nowhere - the same goes with real as an example.

A good and solid defence can get you as far as a good attack. Which has proved immensly important for us since Rafa took over.

Of course there is no dispute you need to score at least 1 goal to win, but you only need to score 3 or 4 if your defence is dodgy. The only thing scoring many goals ensure is entertaining football - not necessarily wins.

I know you are very focussed on may, but as of dec. 8th we are the best team in the PL dispite scoring less goals than six other teams. Points tell you which team is best - not goals (which might work as a good indicator though)

I hear what you're saying and i'm not saying it's fine to be crap defensively if you score lots. But your Man City example isnt 'like for like', because with a top team like us, we're NEVER going to be ****e defensively, otherwise we wouldnt be near the top of the table every year.

I was speaking generally though and Man City are a rare example of a side which scores bucketloads of goals, but doesnt win much. They're a freak example, because they've scored 30 goals (only Chelsea have scored more). None of the teams from 9th place to 20th place have even managed TWENTY league goals yet, except City with 30. They're a very rare case and the exception to the rule. Take City out of the equation, and the top 5 scoring sides in the league are the top 5 placed teams.

So i think this proves my point. Generally speaking, the teams who score the most goals are going to do better than those who dont. I'm honestly not sure how anyone can argue that. Scoring lots of goals DOESNT generally equate to winning more games? Really? I cant believe anyone would say it doesnt. City are, as i say, a rare exception to the rule, but that's why i said 'generally speaking'.

Not sure about your Real Madrid example, they're the reigning champions in Spain.

[Darkon]

I hear what you're saying and i'm not saying it's fine to be crap defensively if you score lots. But your Man City example isnt 'like for like', because with a top team like us, we're NEVER going to be ****e defensively, otherwise we wouldnt be near the top of the table every year.

I was speaking generally though and Man City are a rare example of a side which scores bucketloads of goals, but doesnt win much. They're a freak example, because they've scored 30 goals (only Chelsea have scored more). None of the teams from 9th place to 20th place have even managed TWENTY league goals yet, except City with 30. They're a very rare case and the exception to the rule. Take City out of the equation, and the top 5 scoring sides in the league are the top 5 placed teams.

So i think this proves my point. Generally speaking, the teams who score the most goals are going to do better than those who dont. I'm honestly not sure how anyone can argue that. Scoring lots of goals DOESNT generally equate to winning more games? Really? I cant believe anyone would say it doesnt. City are, as i say, a rare exception to the rule, but that's why i said 'generally speaking'.

Not sure about your Real Madrid example, they're the reigning champions in Spain.

I think we are more or less in agreement.

The point being is that you need balance in your team between attack and defence and that scoring more goals does not necessarily translate in to more points, but it most certainly helps

[Shaggy]

Two more so far tonight for Crouch. That must be about a dozen for the season so far. Their top scorer, certainly. He's better than Robbie Keane.