Peter Løvenkrands

[Yorkie]

What else could it possibly mean? You wouldn't think he was very good in the air, cos he's small and slight, but he's actually an excellent header of the ball. The goals against WBA and Barnsley are a testiment to that.

[madras]

What else could it possibly mean? You wouldn't think he was very good in the air, cos he's small and slight, but he's actually an excellent header of the ball. The goals against WBA and Barnsley are a testiment to that.

i'll take this and run with it. he's a good header of the ball but doesn't "win" many as in you'll not find him challenging for headers against defenders. his headers tend to come when his movement has got him space, similar to michael owen,andy cole and a Mr Milburn.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

What else could it possibly mean? You wouldn't think he was very good in the air, cos he's small and slight, but he's actually an excellent header of the ball. The goals against WBA and Barnsley are a testiment to that.

i'll take this and run with it. he's a good header of the ball but doesn't "win" many as in you'll not find him challenging for headers against defenders. his headers tend to come when his movement has got him space, similar to michael owen,andy cole and a Mr Milburn.

spot on point IMO.

[Yorkie]

Aye i should have said just infront of goal really. Obviously he's not the sort of player who depends on aerial ability, or uses it as a focal point of his game. All i'm saying is that he's scored a few really, really good goals with his head this season.

[madras]

Aye i should have said just infront of goal really. Obviously he's not the sort of player who depends on aerial ability, or uses it as a focal point of his game. All i'm saying is that he's scored a few really, really good goals with his head this season.

but as a rule you wouldn't want us hoying in the type of balls we do for carroll on the basis that mcloven has scored some good headers.

[OzzieMandias]

What else could it possibly mean? You wouldn't think he was very good in the air, cos he's small and slight, but he's actually an excellent header of the ball. The goals against WBA and Barnsley are a testiment to that.

 

Well, what the words literally mean is that he's good in the air in a way that deceives people. What you seem to want to say is that his appearance would deceive you into thinking he's not good in the air, but he is. One could also wonder whether you meant to convey that he deceives you into thinking he's good in the air, but actually isn't. I couldn't tell, so I asked you.

[Village Idiot]

I think that what you are trying to convey is that he has good heading technique, but not the physique to challenge for them. I have seen quite a few forwards like this. Messi for example is an excellent header of the ball, he just won't win any unless unmarked*

 

 

 

*or marked by Rio Ferdinand

 

 

[David28]

With every game I more and more think that Lovenkrands together with Carroll could be and should be our Premier League striking pair next season. Carroll will still get better and Lovenkrands has everything a dangerous striker should have.

[Guest]

Wouldn't go that far mind. Think we'd get away with one as a regular starter, so either Carroll alongside a better pacy striker, or Lovenkrands with a better target man, but not sure about both as a Premier League standard strikeforce.

[Guest NSMagpie]

Had never read any of this thread before today. By Christ, there's some proper s*** in it.

 

Aye, except for that lad who said he'd be lively in the Championship alongside a target-man, and score plenty of goals. Must be a right genius.

 

/Ronaldo

 

(He's scored a goal every 105.6 minutes this season, in all competitions. 11 goals from 16 starts.)

 

Actually, no. Lovenkrands scored 13 times this season.  Besides, he is the club's joint top-scorer, with Kevin Nolan.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/goalscorers.html

 

Of course, Shola Ameobi very probably has the best minutes to goals ratio, if you really think that  counts. 

[Guest toonlass]

I hate to tell you all "I told you so" but.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I told you so

[Rich]

Had never read any of this thread before today. By Christ, there's some proper s*** in it.

 

Aye, except for that lad who said he'd be lively in the Championship alongside a target-man, and score plenty of goals. Must be a right genius.

 

/Ronaldo

 

(He's scored a goal every 105.6 minutes this season, in all competitions. 11 goals from 16 starts.)

 

Actually, no. Lovenkrands scored 13 times this season.  Besides, he is the club's joint top-scorer, with Kevin Nolan.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/goalscorers.html

 

Of course, Shola Ameobi very probably has the best minutes to goals ratio, if you really think that  counts. 

 

 

As I said, 11 goals from 16 starts. 13 goals from all appearances (scored 2 off the bench in the 5-1 win over Cardiff). Was basically trying to make the point that when he starts, he usually scores - which is why it has been so frustrating to see him used so little from the outset in the earlier part of the season (and until fairly recently, to be honest).

 

And yes, I know stats don't tell the full story and can be moulded to fit any point of view (as I did there) - but whatever way you take it, his goals-per-minute ratio is very, very good (tends to be a better judge of strike-rate than goals-per-game).

 

Oh, and Shola's ratio is actually a goal every 106.8 minutes. So aye, fuck off.

[Guest NSMagpie]

Had never read any of this thread before today. By Christ, there's some proper s*** in it.

 

Aye, except for that lad who said he'd be lively in the Championship alongside a target-man, and score plenty of goals. Must be a right genius.

 

/Ronaldo

 

(He's scored a goal every 105.6 minutes this season, in all competitions. 11 goals from 16 starts.)

 

Actually, no. Lovenkrands scored 13 times this season.  Besides, he is the club's joint top-scorer, with Kevin Nolan.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/goalscorers.html

 

Of course, Shola Ameobi very probably has the best minutes to goals ratio, if you really think that  counts. 

 

 

As I said, 11 goals from 16 starts. 13 goals from all appearances (scored 2 off the bench in the 5-1 win over Cardiff). Was basically trying to make the point that when he starts, he usually scores - which is why it has been so frustrating to see him used so little from the outset in the earlier part of the season (and until fairly recently, to be honest).

 

And yes, I know stats don't tell the full story and can be moulded to fit any point of view (as I did there) - but whatever way you take it, his goals-per-minute ratio is very, very good (tends to be a better judge of strike-rate than goals-per-game).

 

Oh, and Shola's ratio is actually a goal every 106.8 minutes. So aye, f*** off.

 

The very fact that you mention goals to minutes ratio, and count only the games and goals when player started the games is bizarre, to say at least. 

 

Yes, stats don't tell the full story, they tell the full story to those who know what is relevant, and what is not. Counting only the games player started, and mentioning it in the same breath with the minutes to goals ratio is laughable.

 

And so is this type of speech:

 

So aye, f*** off.

 

Especially for an admin. 

 

How did you count Shola's minutes to goals ratio? I hope you didn't incude any last season games. 

[Rich]

Had never read any of this thread before today. By Christ, there's some proper s*** in it.

 

Aye, except for that lad who said he'd be lively in the Championship alongside a target-man, and score plenty of goals. Must be a right genius.

 

/Ronaldo

 

(He's scored a goal every 105.6 minutes this season, in all competitions. 11 goals from 16 starts.)

 

Actually, no. Lovenkrands scored 13 times this season.  Besides, he is the club's joint top-scorer, with Kevin Nolan.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/goalscorers.html

 

Of course, Shola Ameobi very probably has the best minutes to goals ratio, if you really think that  counts. 

 

 

As I said, 11 goals from 16 starts. 13 goals from all appearances (scored 2 off the bench in the 5-1 win over Cardiff). Was basically trying to make the point that when he starts, he usually scores - which is why it has been so frustrating to see him used so little from the outset in the earlier part of the season (and until fairly recently, to be honest).

 

And yes, I know stats don't tell the full story and can be moulded to fit any point of view (as I did there) - but whatever way you take it, his goals-per-minute ratio is very, very good (tends to be a better judge of strike-rate than goals-per-game).

 

Oh, and Shola's ratio is actually a goal every 106.8 minutes. So aye, f*** off.

 

The very fact that you mention goals to minutes ratio, and count only the games and goals when player started the games is bizarre, to say at least. 

 

Yes, stats don't tell the full story, they tell the full story to those who know what is relevant, and what is not. Counting only the games player started, and mentioning it in the same breath with the minutes to goals ratio is laughable.

 

And so is this type of speech:

 

So aye, f*** off.

 

Especially for an admin. 

 

How did you count Shola's minutes to goals ratio? I hope you didn't incude any last season games. 

 

Dear me. I counted it by dividing the minutes he has played this season by the goals he has scored. Doesn't take too long to do.

 

What is relevant for a striker then? Oh enlightened one.

 

How was it relevant that you stated Lovenkrands is joint-top scorer with Kevin Nolan, in relation to my point about games started and goals-per-minute? Surely that was a daft comment as Nolan has played far more games, far more minutes and plays in a different position? Do you see the irony here?

 

I can deal with debating with sensible/even just consistent points of view (which yours definitely hasn't been, even just across two posts), but not people who initially misread the point of a post, then are mistaken about their next daft assumption (Ameobi) and then question the basis of the post with an almighty when it's them who are acting laughably.

 

I've already made it clear that I was using goals-per-minute to support my assumption from last season that Lovenkrands would score plenty of goals at this level and that I then went on to mention goals-per-start to support the fact that I feel he should have been used from the start a lot more this season. I did explain that in my previous post, if you actually read it. The man scores goals, he would have scored a lot more if he'd been used more. That's the basic gist of what I am getting at, surely that's fair enough?

 

Also I must apologise for my aggressive reaction to you there as well, but you must see why your post frustrated me. You absolute mong.

[ponsaelius]

Think his ratio would be even better if you discounted games where he's started out wide.

[Guest Phil K]

Had never read any of this thread before today. By Christ, there's some proper s*** in it.

Thats what all threads are for.

 

He has a great movement, pace and a great finishing. Like the Michael Owen we should have had the last 4 years.

Nice one. I'm going to use that line and claim it as my own....

[Guest NSMagpie]

 

Dear me. I counted it by dividing the minutes he has played this season by the goals he has scored. Doesn't take too long to do.

 

What is relevant for a striker then? Oh enlightened one.

 

How was it relevant that you stated Lovenkrands is joint-top scorer with Kevin Nolan, in relation to my point about games started and goals-per-minute? Surely that was a daft comment as Nolan has played far more games, far more minutes and plays in a different position? Do you see the irony here?

 

I can deal with debating with sensible/even just consistent points of view (which yours definitely hasn't been, even just across two posts), but not people who initially misread the point of a post, then are mistaken about their next daft assumption (Ameobi) and then question the basis of the post with an almighty when it's them who are acting laughably.

 

I've already made it clear that I was using goals-per-minute to support my assumption from last season that Lovenkrands would score plenty of goals at this level and that I then went on to mention goals-per-start to support the fact that I feel he should have been used from the start a lot more this season. I did explain that in my previous post, if you actually read it. The man scores goals, he would have scored a lot more if he'd been used more. That's the basic gist of what I am getting at, surely that's fair enough?

 

Also I must apologise for my aggressive reaction to you there as well, but you must see why your post frustrated me. You absolute mong.

 

Let's start from the end- no, I don't accept your apology, as it's not sincere, as you continued to insult in the very post you issued an apology ("You absolute mong").

 

But, that's not so important. What is more important is:

 

1. Your statement... "that Lovenkrands would score plenty of goals at this level" if he were used more is simply banal.

 

ANY player who is used more has more chance of scoring, as simple as that. Especially a striker who starts more games is in much better chance of scoring goals than a substitute. Having in mind that first-choice strikers in modern football very rarely play less than one halftime, and that substitutes often don't have more than 20 or 25 minutes per game.

 

2. The minutes to goals ratio was introduced exactly for that reason. Some strikers spend a lot of time in game, as starters more often than not, but don't strike with the same proficiency like some reserves.

 

That's why this ratio was introduced- to have a fair criterium for judging the success of all strikers, whether they are starters or reserves, or change status during the season, like Lovenkrands. You can't use minutes to goals ratio and take away some games, and count in the others.

 

Using the minutes to goals ratio and counting goals in only the game Lovenkrands spent as starter is illogical and incorrect. Besides, it doesn't serve your aim of proving his goalscoring proficiency.

 

3. Listing Lovenkrands as the club's top scorer is relevant for many reasons.

 

It shows clearly that a player has good form in longer period of time. It shows that player is actually doing what he can do. Ratio we mentioned so often shows only that he MIGHT do it. Comparison to Nolan and mentioning minutes is okay, but you forgot the most important par (again  ) - Nolan is midfielder, and Lovenkrands is striker.

 

Ratio cannot show that. Shola and Lovenkrands have almost identical ratio of goals per minute, only slightly in Lovenkrands favour, but one is permanently injured, and the other one plays and scores.

 

Although I totally agree with your general idea that Lovenkrands is able to score, and not only in this level of the game, IMO he can do it in the Premiership as well, your method of proving it is absolutely laughable.

 

Your way of saying that you don't like my posts is even more laughable, but, have fun. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[olliemort]

Nolan was used as a striker numerous times this season

[Guest firetotheworks]

He's just the epitome of cult hero isn't he.

[Rich]

 

Dear me. I counted it by dividing the minutes he has played this season by the goals he has scored. Doesn't take too long to do.

 

What is relevant for a striker then? Oh enlightened one.

 

How was it relevant that you stated Lovenkrands is joint-top scorer with Kevin Nolan, in relation to my point about games started and goals-per-minute? Surely that was a daft comment as Nolan has played far more games, far more minutes and plays in a different position? Do you see the irony here?

 

I can deal with debating with sensible/even just consistent points of view (which yours definitely hasn't been, even just across two posts), but not people who initially misread the point of a post, then are mistaken about their next daft assumption (Ameobi) and then question the basis of the post with an almighty when it's them who are acting laughably.

 

I've already made it clear that I was using goals-per-minute to support my assumption from last season that Lovenkrands would score plenty of goals at this level and that I then went on to mention goals-per-start to support the fact that I feel he should have been used from the start a lot more this season. I did explain that in my previous post, if you actually read it. The man scores goals, he would have scored a lot more if he'd been used more. That's the basic gist of what I am getting at, surely that's fair enough?

 

Also I must apologise for my aggressive reaction to you there as well, but you must see why your post frustrated me. You absolute mong.

 

Let's start from the end- no, I don't accept your apology, as it's not sincere, as you continued to insult in the very post you issued an apology ("You absolute mong").

 

But, that's not so important. What is more important is:

 

1. Your statement... "that Lovenkrands would score plenty of goals at this level" if he were used more is simply banal.

 

ANY player who is used more has more chance of scoring, as simple as that. Especially a striker who starts more games is in much better chance of scoring goals than a substitute. Having in mind that first-choice strikers in modern football very rarely play less than one halftime, and that substitutes often don't have more than 20 or 25 minutes per game.

 

2. The minutes to goals ratio was introduced exactly for that reason. Some strikers spend a lot of time in game, as starters more often than not, but don't strike with the same proficiency like some reserves.

 

That's why this ratio was introduced- to have a fair criterium for judging the success of all strikers, whether they are starters or reserves, or change status during the season, like Lovenkrands. You can't use minutes to goals ratio and take away some games, and count in the others.

 

Using the minutes to goals ratio and counting goals in only the game Lovenkrands spent as starter is illogical and incorrect. Besides, it doesn't serve your aim of proving his goalscoring proficiency.

 

3. Listing Lovenkrands as the club's top scorer is relevant for many reasons.

 

It shows clearly that a player has good form in longer period of time. It shows that player is actually doing what he can do. Ratio we mentioned so often shows only that he MIGHT do it. Comparison to Nolan and mentioning minutes is okay, but you forgot the most important par (again  ) - Nolan is midfielder, and Lovenkrands is striker.

 

Ratio cannot show that. Shola and Lovenkrands have almost identical ratio of goals per minute, only slightly in Lovenkrands favour, but one is permanently injured, and the other one plays and scores.

 

Although I totally agree with your general idea that Lovenkrands is able to score, and not only in this level of the game, IMO he can do it in the Premiership as well, your method of proving it is absolutely laughable.

 

Your way of saying that you don't like my posts is even more laughable, but, have fun. 

 

Argh.

 

1. Yes, obviously that is the case, but in this particular instance with Lovenkrands I think it's a fair argument to show that he should have played in more games as when he has played he has a fantastic record. I see where the confusion is coming from, because you're looking at it a different way to me. My fault for not being crystal clear.

 

My argument has always been that Hughton hasn't used him enough, which you COULD understand if he wasn't producing the goods. In fact, he now has the best scoring record at the club this season (whatever way you look at it) and simply means I am frustrated he's only become a regular starter recently. I don't think that's too unfair, although I appreciate you're a big fan of Hughton. This whole issue is based upon my assumption that if Lovenkrands had played more he would have continued his impressive scoring record and therefore, we'd be even better-off because of it. (I do realise this is merely assumption and may not have occured.)

 

2. I have counted ALL the minutes Lovenkrands and Ameobi have played this season, not JUST the ones where Lovenkrands started for the goals/minutes ratio, so again you've totally got your wires crossed. I stated this, and then have explained (twice now) that I then mentioned goals/starts alongside it, not with it. I can't be any clearer than that. Lovenkrands has that goals/minutes ratio in all games, but has scored 11 in 16 starts (a good record, that's all I'm saying).

 

Basically, point 2 you've made is void, completely, as you have totally got it wrong. Again this may just be me not being clear.

 

3. Possibly your most embarrassing one so far.

 

If you actually read my post, you will see I did indeed mention the positions of Nolan/Lovenkrands:

 

Nolan has played far more games, far more minutes and plays in a different position?

 

So yet again, you're simply not reading my posts properly or you just don't understand what I have now had to say 3 times.

 

No insults this time, I think that says enough. Apologies to everyone else for how fucking boring this is.

[Guest NSMagpie]

 

Rich,

 

You are very convincing. 

 

Especially when you give your remarks  meanings they didn't have originally. All I can read in your last post is re-writing of what you actually already posted and one comment to all my remarks- that I didn't actually read/ understand your statement.

 

However, there is one thing on which we agree, this is starting to be awfully boring, so, over & out from me.

 

Still, it's funny to discuss things with people like you, sometimes, so see you in another topic, maybe. 

 

[JH]

Lovenkrands is a ledge 

[cubaricho]

Lovenkrands is a ledge 

 

This is true.  Absolutely love the guy.

[Rich]

 

Rich,

 

You are very convincing.  

 

Especially when you give your remarks  meanings they didn't have originally. All I can read in your last post is re-writing of what you actually already posted and one comment to all my remarks- that I didn't actually read/ understand your statement.

 

However, there is one thing on which we agree, this is starting to be awfully boring, so, over & out from me.

 

Still, it's funny to discuss things with people like you, sometimes, so see you in another topic, maybe. 

 

 

His ratio is even better after last night, you'll be glad to know.

[LooneyToonArmy]

Peter Lovenkrands blow for Newcastle: Striker ruled out by ankle injury

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1259065/Peter-Lovenkrands-blow-Newcastle-Striker-ruled-ankle-injury.html?ITO=1490