Jump to content

Rhodeswatch


F_T_Y

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 608
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The term "chances" is also a bit vague. Needing 4 or 5 "chances", is a chance a 1v1? Is it a shot from the edge of the box? A free kick?

I'd say in a footballing context a "chance" is where you cpuld reasonably expect someone to score (or at least make the keeper make a good save), so 1v1, close range shots in a bit of space and things like that. You're right it's a bit vague but everyone in football talks about chances. Actually, there must be an actual football definition of a chance as there's plenty of statistics that measure "chances scored" and other similar chance-related stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PB/Peppino and Lichtie are right: there isn't a striker in the world who scores every chance - not Messi, Ronaldo, Lewandowski, none of them. They all generally need a good few chances to net one.

 

I remember when Rhodes was at Huddersfield and scored for them in the playoffs, there was a shot of Dean Hoyle holding up one finger and mouthing 'one chance' to his business buddies in the stand. He wasn't actually scoring every time he had a chance that season but he wasn't too far off. He's never been at those heights since, though he has been doing well.

Kevin Gallacher recently claimed Rhodes was a 1 in three man in the Championship. That came across as a mild criticism, but it's actually a pretty strong - if anecdotal - ratio.

 

Anyway, fact is if we had a guy who was netting at every opportunity then you could start to scrutinise Rhodes' record. Truth is, we don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.  I fail to believe his chance to goal ratio is worse than any of the guys getting a game for Scotland before him.  Happy to be proved wrong with evidence of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I fail to believe his chance to goal ratio is worse than any of the guys getting a game for Scotland before him. Happy to be proved wrong with evidence of course.

I reckon Naismith's must be pretty high. Albeit not a completely like for like comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I'm making is that (particularly against decent teams) he won't get the numerous chances to score that he needs. As I've said I'd still play him against poorer teams and he's clearly a better player than Martin, but I'd still have Fletcher/Naismith ahead of Rhodes. Hopefully he gets more and more used to the 4231 formation and the role he needs to play, he's certainly already showing he's getting better at that role.

 

what are fletcher and naismiths goals to shot ratio this season, just out of curiosity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on whoscored.com (no idea if reputable), this season:

 

Rhodes: 43 apps, 16 goals, 2.7 shots per game =  7.25%

Fletcher: 33 apps, 6 goals, 1.7 shots per game = 9.35%

Naismith: 25 apps, 5 goals, 1.2 shots per game = 5.20%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on whoscored.com (no idea if reputable), this season:

 

Rhodes: 43 apps, 16 goals, 2.7 shots per game =  7.25%

Fletcher: 33 apps, 6 goals, 1.7 shots per game = 9.35%

Naismith: 25 apps, 5 goals, 1.2 shots per game = 5.20%

fucKin disgraceful drop them all every striker at St Johnstone is on over 20%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've sat and rattled on about stats yet when they're provided and prove unequivocally that Fletcher has the best conversion rate of the two, you still cry foul?

You're a fucking Tam McB.

this season.

I talked about what conversion rates would be, and was correct. I didn't claim on their own they'd be proof of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...