Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Peter Løvenkrands

Rich

by Rich
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Phil K

Guest Phil K

Posted
Posted

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....;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NSMagpie

Guest NSMagpie

Posted
Posted

 

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 :mackems: 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  :laugh:) - 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.  :razz:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich

Rich

Posted
Posted

 

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 :mackems: 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  :laugh:) - 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.  :razz:

 

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. :aww:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NSMagpie

Guest NSMagpie

Posted
Posted

 

Rich,

 

You are very convincing.  :coolsmiley:

 

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.  :razz:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich

Rich

Posted
Posted

 

Rich,

 

You are very convincing.   :coolsmiley:

 

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.  :razz:

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie

Jamie

Posted
Posted
Massive blow, probly go 1 upfront now or have Nolan just behind Carroll. Best is gash, and Ranger doesnt seem prefered these days. In comes Nicky Butt or Alan Smith, nightmare!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest foon

Guest foon

Posted
Posted

He is one of the most unlucky guys on the planet I think. Despite that, he seems to thrive on it and still go on to look awesome and score goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest icemanblue

Guest icemanblue

Posted
Posted

He is one of the most unlucky guys on the planet I think. Despite that, he seems to thrive on it and still go on to look awesome and score goals.

 

Huh? How's that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...