Today, throughout the afternoon, they were doing a Torres v Drogba thing, in build up to Sunday, with total Premier League goals, as their main stat.
Drogba - 61
Torres - 46
They basically had number of PL goals at the head of their stats, and then compared all sorts of irrelevant stuff too, like what foot the goals were scored with, whether they were outside the box or in, whether they scored them in the 1st or 2nd half etc etc...
The one stat they neglected to mention? Oh yes, it was Premier League STARTS, which obviously makes a major difference in the 'who is better' stakes, which was obviously the crux of the issue.
Those figures are as follows:
Drogba - 109
Torres - 56
The way they made it look, was that Drogba was marginally (but noticably) better. When you look at the appearances figures, you see the truth. Drogba has an excellent record, better than 1 in 2 (which is brilliant by anyone's standards), but Drogba's record is in keeping with the kind of records top strikers in the world tend to have.
Torres' record of 46 in 56 starts is incomprehensibly out of this world. They talk of 1 in 2 as being the benchmark for brilliant strikers, but Torres is a tiny amount off a goal per game - in the Premier League, one of the world's hardest and best leagues - and having only played for 2 seasons (one of which he was missing for half the time).
In reality, there's no contest between them. Drogba's class but Torres sets a completely different standard to the rest.
Drogba's one of the best amongst his peers, while Torres HAS no peers.
He's better than everyone else by an absolute CHASM and in a league of his own.
In short, Sky Sports can **** off.
Drogba - 61
Torres - 46
They basically had number of PL goals at the head of their stats, and then compared all sorts of irrelevant stuff too, like what foot the goals were scored with, whether they were outside the box or in, whether they scored them in the 1st or 2nd half etc etc...
The one stat they neglected to mention? Oh yes, it was Premier League STARTS, which obviously makes a major difference in the 'who is better' stakes, which was obviously the crux of the issue.
Those figures are as follows:
Drogba - 109
Torres - 56
The way they made it look, was that Drogba was marginally (but noticably) better. When you look at the appearances figures, you see the truth. Drogba has an excellent record, better than 1 in 2 (which is brilliant by anyone's standards), but Drogba's record is in keeping with the kind of records top strikers in the world tend to have.
Torres' record of 46 in 56 starts is incomprehensibly out of this world. They talk of 1 in 2 as being the benchmark for brilliant strikers, but Torres is a tiny amount off a goal per game - in the Premier League, one of the world's hardest and best leagues - and having only played for 2 seasons (one of which he was missing for half the time).
In reality, there's no contest between them. Drogba's class but Torres sets a completely different standard to the rest.
Drogba's one of the best amongst his peers, while Torres HAS no peers.
He's better than everyone else by an absolute CHASM and in a league of his own.
In short, Sky Sports can **** off.
that guy could score some goals!
Comment