Kuyt scores more often than Crouch - FACT!

[Colemere]

Interesting, however my initial post took an outlook at their careers as a whole at LFC.

But since crouchs' initial settling period, how ever many games it was, what are theri records like?

Take that patch out of Crouchs' career and he would be the better scorere. Fact is that since then Crouch has done much better than Kuyt.

Subjective argument, Kuyt is wank as a striker.

[kop-al-74]

Interesting stats tomasjj,reality of the matter thow,imo, is that Kuyt isn't good enough.Average table team striker,teams like portsmouth(Benjani),Blackburn(Mccarthy),Villa(agbo nlahor),Spurs(all of them) have better strikers than Kuyt.

[fah-q]

Surely you should compare our best striker against those teams' best strikers?

[Mattshark]

But since crouchs' initial settling period, how ever many games it was, what are theri records like?

Take that patch out of Crouchs' career and he would be the better scorere. Fact is that since then Crouch has done much better than Kuyt.

Subjective argument, Kuyt is wank as a striker.

But that isn't a comparison of their entire time at Liverpool, your picking and choosing which periods of their career to use, even more subjective.

[Mattshark]

Surely you should compare our best striker against those teams' best strikers?

Agreed and isn't Kuyts record just as good as Berbatov's?

[Morph]

Agreed and isn't Kuyts record just as good as Berbatov's?

aye it is, but but I'm not so sure we should be comparing with teams we aren't directly competing against ie not a top 4 side

[AFII]

You shouldn't count how many goals a certain player score when he plays. It's about the whole team.

A better statistic would be how many goals we score(the whole team) when Crouch plays compared to Kuyt.

[Red Chilli]

You shouldn't count how many goals a certain player score when he plays. It's about the whole team.

A better statistic would be how many goals we score(the whole team) when Crouch plays compared to Kuyt.

No it wouldn't

Surely the opposition is a factor in that stupid comparrison.

Basically you can't match the players completely so thre will always be an element of bias in the comparrisons. So STATS prove NOTHING.

[dww]

No it wouldn't

Surely the opposition is a factor in that stupid comparrison.

Basically you can't match the players completely so thre will always be an element of bias in the comparrisons. So STATS prove NOTHING.

I don't think it is that stupid at all. Surely the whole point of a statistical viewpoint is that a number of variables such as opposition would even out over a large enough number of games? Obviously it is an assumption but that doesn't mean that the metric is entirely meaningless.

The thing is that unless you have a logical system then nothing is provable. Statistics give a way of trying to make a meaningful comparison which is less biased than purely subjective judgments.

[Red Chilli]

I don't think it is that stupid at all. Surely the whole point of a statistical viewpoint is that a number of variables such as opposition would even out over a large enough number of games? Obviously it is an assumption but that doesn't mean that the metric is entirely meaningless.

The thing is that unless you have a logical system then nothing is provable. Statistics give a way of trying to make a meaningful comparison which is less biased than purely subjective judgments.

You cannot match the players, even if the only play for the same number of minutes in exactly the same game you STILL cannot match them.

So any statistical analysis is inherently biased. So what's the point?

[Morph]

I don't think it is that stupid at all. Surely the whole point of a statistical viewpoint is that a number of variables such as opposition would even out over a large enough number of games? Obviously it is an assumption but that doesn't mean that the metric is entirely meaningless.

The thing is that unless you have a logical system then nothing is provable. Statistics give a way of trying to make a meaningful comparison which is less biased than purely subjective judgments.

problem is there are too many variables, particularly with the way rafa rotates his squad, the strikers may never play with the same 10 colleagues

[dww]

You cannot match the players, even if the only play for the same number of minutes in exactly the same game you STILL cannot match them.

So any statistical analysis is inherently biased. So what's the point?

Why can't you match them? Is that really the point of statistics? If we can't match players in anyway that invalidates all analysis - so what the point of the form?

[dww]

problem is there are too many variables, particularly with the way rafa rotates his squad, the strikers may never play with the same 10 colleagues

You may well be right. I still think that statistics, carefully chosen to make specific points are valuable - the problem is that people desire to get more from them than is possible.

[Red Chilli]

Why can't you match them? Is that really the point of statistics? If we can't match players in anyway that invalidates all analysis - so what the point of the form?

You can't match them because they don't play against the same opposition with the same team mates in the same position etc etc.

There are too many variables which don't match hence statistical analysis of such things is meaningless at best.

[Morph]

You may well be right. I still think that statistics, carefully chosen to make specific points are valuable - the problem is that people desire to get more from them than is possible.

i agree, the particular stats in this case tho i think are as fair as your likely to get in football, of course we need to give kuyt till the end of this season to see if he gets out his rut, but we don't need stats to prove that