Spud55 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 whitey what executedwolf was tryin to say was that you CLEARLY have a biased opinion on this forum about Lee Miller, which you clearly do. I bet in 2 seasons from now say, if Lee still plays and doesnt score one goal for us in every start you would defend him and make excuses. thats how biased you are. ← How does he clearly have a biased oppinion of Miller ? To be honest his oppinion of Miller is pretty much the same as mine, does that mean i'm clearly biased ? I would actually expect the opposite, as often the people closest to you are often your biggest critics. Miller is a good player, adn is probably doing well at Herts because he actually has a winger who can cross the ball, whereas our fans idolise one who couldn't cross a T. Miller hardly played last season compared to mr god Peacock. I've done it before and it has been done more accurately by others in the past, Miller played a shade less than half the time of mr Peacock and got about half the goals. Had Miller been persisted with alongside Robbo when peacock was in his highly rich vein of scoring of 3 was it after Christmas, then i highly doubt we would be in this shithole of a division now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tactical Genius Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Spud, Just to clarify a few of your inaccuracies, and indeed de-bunk a few myths about last season whilst I'm at it. I have used BC life website as my source, because I prefer others to do my research for me. Last season Miller played 2601 minutes, Peacock played 3489. Or if you prefer Miller played 74.5% the amount of minutes that Peacock did. You will no doubt appreciate that this sum is significantly more than "a shade less than half the time". During that time Peacock scored 14 goals to Miller's 8. Or a goal every 249 minutes to Miller's 325 minuets. Or, if you prefer, for the time it took Miller to score twice Peacock would bag you 3. Peacock managed 14 goals in 115 attempts, that is 8.2 attempts per goal. Miller took 68 attempts to get his 8, or 8.5 attempts per goal. Not much difference in conversion rates, but 68 attempts is only around 60% of 115. In terms of club benefit, Miller's goals helped us gain 11 points, when he scored first, an equaliser, or a winning goal. His goals against Brighton and Notts County did little to influence the result. Peacock, however, helped the club gain 23 points with his goals, 8 of his 14 were the important first goal. See what I'm getting at here? Now I'm not going to sit here and argue a case that Peacock is a world beater, far from it, he is a functional support striker for this division and no more. But let's not pretend that we would have got promotion had Miller spent more time on the pitch last year. Apologies to some of our less intelligent readers, of which I note there are many, for the statistical element to my post. But I always find that cold hard evidence is so much more compelling than subjective opinion when trying to prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadratinmycider Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 please don't let cold, hard facts get in the way of an argument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Spud, Just to clarify a few of your inaccuracies, and indeed de-bunk a few myths about last season whilst I'm at it. I have used BC life website as my source, because I prefer others to do my research for me. Last season Miller played 2601 minutes, Peacock played 3489. Or if you prefer Miller played 74.5% the amount of minutes that Peacock did. You will no doubt appreciate that this sum is significantly more than "a shade less than half the time". During that time Peacock scored 14 goals to Miller's 8. Or a goal every 249 minutes to Miller's 325 minuets. Or, if you prefer, for the time it took Miller to score twice Peacock would bag you 3. Peacock managed 14 goals in 115 attempts, that is 8.2 attempts per goal. Miller took 68 attempts to get his 8, or 8.5 attempts per goal. Not much difference in conversion rates, but 68 attempts is only around 60% of 115. In terms of club benefit, Miller's goals helped us gain 11 points, when he scored first, an equaliser, or a winning goal. His goals against Brighton and Notts County did little to influence the result. Peacock, however, helped the club gain 23 points with his goals, 8 of his 14 were the important first goal. See what I'm getting at here? Now I'm not going to sit here and argue a case that Peacock is a world beater, far from it, he is a functional support striker for this division and no more. But let's not pretend that we would have got promotion had Miller spent more time on the pitch last year. Apologies to some of our less intelligent readers, of which I note there are many, for the statistical element to my post. But I always find that cold hard evidence is so much more compelling than subjective opinion when trying to prove a point. ← Great post, nice to actually see some proper figures in this never ending debate. I knew i was right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yajrellim Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Spud, Just to clarify a few of your inaccuracies, and indeed de-bunk a few myths about last season whilst I'm at it. I have used BC life website as my source, because I prefer others to do my research for me. Last season Miller played 2601 minutes, Peacock played 3489. Or if you prefer Miller played 74.5% the amount of minutes that Peacock did. You will no doubt appreciate that this sum is significantly more than "a shade less than half the time". During that time Peacock scored 14 goals to Miller's 8. Or a goal every 249 minutes to Miller's 325 minuets. Or, if you prefer, for the time it took Miller to score twice Peacock would bag you 3. Peacock managed 14 goals in 115 attempts, that is 8.2 attempts per goal. Miller took 68 attempts to get his 8, or 8.5 attempts per goal. Not much difference in conversion rates, but 68 attempts is only around 60% of 115. In terms of club benefit, Miller's goals helped us gain 11 points, when he scored first, an equaliser, or a winning goal. His goals against Brighton and Notts County did little to influence the result. Peacock, however, helped the club gain 23 points with his goals, 8 of his 14 were the important first goal. See what I'm getting at here? Now I'm not going to sit here and argue a case that Peacock is a world beater, far from it, he is a functional support striker for this division and no more. But let's not pretend that we would have got promotion had Miller spent more time on the pitch last year. Apologies to some of our less intelligent readers, of which I note there are many, for the statistical element to my post. But I always find that cold hard evidence is so much more compelling than subjective opinion when trying to prove a point. ← All these stats are well and good but remember(Lee M) was playing in a new league with a new team. Where as (Lee P) had quite a few season under his belt. That makes a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filton Red Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 All these stats are well and good but remember(Lee M) was playing in a new league with a new team. Where as (Lee P) had quite a few season under his belt. That makes a big difference. ← ...and it was the fans and chairman that brought him here, so might not have been one of Wilson's "favoured" personel either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 ...and it was the fans and chairman that brought him here, so might not have been one of Wilson's "favoured" personel either. ← Now we're getting there, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tactical Genius Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 All these stats are well and good but remember(Lee M) was playing in a new league with a new team. Where as (Lee P) had quite a few season under his belt. That makes a big difference. ← No it doesn't make a big difference, besides Peacock's first season stats would still compare more than favourably up against Miller's. Bear in mind it was also the first time that Peacock was expected to be the main striker in terms of scoring goals, and presumably he therefore had to adjust to his new role as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Spud, Just to clarify a few of your inaccuracies, and indeed de-bunk a few myths about last season whilst I'm at it. I have used BC life website as my source, because I prefer others to do my research for me. Last season Miller played 2601 minutes, Peacock played 3489. Or if you prefer Miller played 74.5% the amount of minutes that Peacock did. You will no doubt appreciate that this sum is significantly more than "a shade less than half the time". During that time Peacock scored 14 goals to Miller's 8. Or a goal every 249 minutes to Miller's 325 minuets. Or, if you prefer, for the time it took Miller to score twice Peacock would bag you 3. Peacock managed 14 goals in 115 attempts, that is 8.2 attempts per goal. Miller took 68 attempts to get his 8, or 8.5 attempts per goal. Not much difference in conversion rates, but 68 attempts is only around 60% of 115. In terms of club benefit, Miller's goals helped us gain 11 points, when he scored first, an equaliser, or a winning goal. His goals against Brighton and Notts County did little to influence the result. Peacock, however, helped the club gain 23 points with his goals, 8 of his 14 were the important first goal. See what I'm getting at here? Now I'm not going to sit here and argue a case that Peacock is a world beater, far from it, he is a functional support striker for this division and no more. But let's not pretend that we would have got promotion had Miller spent more time on the pitch last year. Apologies to some of our less intelligent readers, of which I note there are many, for the statistical element to my post. But I always find that cold hard evidence is so much more compelling than subjective opinion when trying to prove a point. ← Oh dear, my bad complete shocker on my part. Hmmm bugger, really sorry about that. I must have got confused completely, i'm sure someone did that, mabye it was Robbo i can't remember. Thanks for putting me straight though At least you managed to back it up with some facts, as i failed miserably to. Bit Ot but what is the url for that website as i used to have it but lost it after a reformat, and it would have saved me the embarrasment of making a complete tit of myself as i usually check these things out first but i can't without that site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Oh dear, my bad complete shocker on my part. Hmmm bugger, really sorry about that. I must have got confused completely, i'm sure someone did that, mabye it was Robbo i can't remember. Thanks for putting me straight though At least you managed to back it up with some facts, as i failed miserably to. Bit Ot but what is the url for that website as i used to have it but lost it after a reformat, and it would have saved me the embarrasment of making a complete tit of myself as i usually check these things out first but i can't without that site. ← Surely this is sarcasm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Surely this is sarcasm? ← Why would it be sarcasm ? I dropped a complete bollock and was appologising for it. Is that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Why would it be sarcasm ? I dropped a complete bollock and was appologising for it. Is that bad? ← It was worded in such a way as to make me unsire of its truth. But fair play to you sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 It was worded in such a way as to make me unsire of its truth. But fair play to you sir. ← no i did actually feel like a complete tit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.