comment by Robbing_Hoody - Here, have some goals. You don't have to work for them. They're a gift. That's what we do now. (U6374)
posted 3 hours, 57 minutes ago
SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
You don't have to walk me through it as your reference to the past is irrelevant. You could put welbeck through the middle at LFC he still would not be as good at football as Sturridge who has better balance, feet, shot and skills. Nothing else matters and the ascertion that we should compare Welbeck to a past Sturridge is laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well their records when played at big clubs out on the wing are pretty similar....
So you might not like the comparison but its a pretty valid one.
Having a world class striker for the season is worth £20M whether the Carroll transfer happened or not, I was just pointing out we are getting Falcao for a season and its costing us less than Liverpool payed for Carroll.
Well their records when played at big clubs out on the wing are pretty similar....
--------------
Not really and that doesn't alter the fact Sturridge is better at football.
"Pre-LFC sturridge" is laughable. Surprised he didn't have it on his shirt.
I dont see how this has turned from a comparison between Welbeck and Borini to include Sturridge.
It's like two Liverpool players ganging up on an Arsenal player. Well when I say players I mean Sturridge and someone who is the PL equivalent of a Sunday league lino....can't even get a game when the other side is short
Wouldn't Borini have been Evertons 2nd top scorer or something last season?
You really are an oddball with this obsession.
comment by Robbing_Hoody - Here, have some goals. You don't have to work for them. They're a gift. That's what we do now. (U6374)
posted 50 minutes ago
Well their records when played at big clubs out on the wing are pretty similar....
--------------
Not really and that doesn't alter the fact Sturridge is better at football.
"Pre-LFC sturridge" is laughable. Surprised he didn't have it on his shirt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh yes they did.
Don't think there is too much between them tbh.
Both have similar scoring records out of position, both score when played upfront. Sturridge is a better finisher but Welbeck offers more to the team in terms of workrate and that.
Sturridge pre LFC and playing in his proper position was noting special, probably because he hadn't reall been given a crack at his position... Like Welbeck.
Okay then Sturridge was clearly world class prior to his move and his low scoring stats at Chelsea were a lie he was scoring at least a goal a game!!
Chelsea sold him so cheaply because they like Liverpool as well.
Do you mean when Studge came on as sub 32 times for Chelsea or when he came on as sub 16 times for City?
Sturridge has scord a 0.69 goals per 90 minutes during his entire career. Welbs has not I'm afraid.
comment by Robbing_Hoody - Here, have some goals. You don't have to work for them. They're a gift. That's what we do now. (U6374)
posted 53 minutes ago
Wouldn't Borini have been Evertons 2nd top scorer or something last season?
You really are an oddball with this obsession.
======
Not sure how he would have been top scorer for us, Martinez has never shown an interest in a flop
Borini as good as Welbeck. Haha get a grip.
Sturridge has stats of 0.25 goals per chance vs Welbeck who also has around 0.25 goals per chance.
I think Welbeck will do really well for us, good movement and pace in behind with a very creative midfield.
Do you mean when Studge came on as sub 32 times for Chelsea or when he came on as sub 16 times for City?
......,............................
Well if we're excluding those stats because he got used as a substitute then we are going to struggle to use any stats for Welbeck as a lot if his appearances were as a substitute.
Up to the same age in similar circumstances they had similar scoring ratios, I do apologise for these facts I realise Liverpool fans find them very annoying...
Maybe we can pretend Welbecks scoring ratio is a lot worse than Sturridges in similar circumstances, its not true but it'll make the Liverpool fans feel better
Sturridge scores more goals per 90 minutes and that's about all that maters here. Simply better at football and it's pretty obvious.
Sturridge was pretty similar to Welbeck up to his current age.... Maybe Sturridge is the only player in the world that would play better when playing his proper position...
Maybe Sturridge is the only striker in the world who would struggle to score from out wide but score loads up front despite the stats showing Welbeck is quite similar to Sturrudge in that regard...
Maybe the stats lie?
Whatever the reason clearly Sturridge was always incredible and Welbeck always terrible... The stats just lie or something...
No. There is something you clearly don't understand. Sturridge, whether wide or central, has performed and does perform to a higher level regardless of position. It's a fact, it's not up for debate, he's better at scoring goals. The end.
Sleep well.
No. There is something you clearly don't understand. Sturridge, whether wide or central, has performed and does perform to a higher level regardless of position. It's a fact, it's not up for debate, he's better at scoring goals.]
..........................................................
TBH at United and Chelsea they were much the same, Sturridge scored at a slightly higher rate and Welbeck offered a little bit more to the team...
Maybe Sturridge just got magically better at Liverpool?
Or, this is a crazy idea, maybe playing a striker in the striker position helps them play better and score more goals....
Admittedly it is just a crazy theory...
Night night.
If you can show me a statistic that says Welbeck scored a 0.69 goals per 90 mins regardless of position I will concede. But yo can't. Because he didn't. Sturridge scored that many pre-lfc and he scores that now.
you don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid. It's just a fact.
1 in 4 in comparison to 1 in 4.8 4.9 isn't really much different...
Chelsea
2009–10 13 apps 1 goal
2010–11 13 apps 0 goal
2011–12 30 apps 11 goals
2012–13 7 apps 1 goal.
63 apps, 13 goals.
1 in 4.8 in the league.
Danny Welbeck
2008–09 3 apps 1 goal
2009–10 5 apps 0 goals
2011–12 30 apps 9 goals
2012–13 27 apps 1 goal
2013–14 25 apps 9 goals
2014–15 2 apps 0 goals.
92 League appearances, 20 goals.
1 in 4.6
Soccer Base and Wiki agree on the goals and league appearances...
Like I said maybe Sturridge just magically overnight turned into a better player when he joined Liverpool...
Or maybe actually playing as a striker instead of a winger gave him a chance to score goals, much like Welbeck will do....
Goals per minute kid. Jesus wept.
Admittedly Sturridge's 1 in 4.8 is world class whereas Welbeck's 1 in 4.6 is absolutely shocking....
Are you stupid? Goals. Per. Minute.
I always look for strikers that get a lower ratio of goals per game at their previous clubs like Sturridge at Chelsea rather than Welbeck at United... as well all know a lower ratio = better
Stupid it is then. Good stuff.
Faaaaaaaack me. It's pretty simple.
True, in 129 Premier League matches, Sturridge has scored 54 goals – a bit under one every other game. But the unvarnished statistics mask the real picture: at Manchester City and Chelsea he was a bit-part actor in a giant theatre ensemble: he got a short scene here, a cameo there. Of those 129 Premier League appearances, 54 were as a substitute.
When you look at Sturridge's goal tally per 90 minutes in the Premier League across his career a dramatically different picture emerges. He has scored an average of 0.69 league goals per 90 minutes. That puts him ahead of all the other great Liverpool strikers in the Premier League era, including Michael Owen (0.59 goals every 90 minutes), Fernando Torres (0.53), Robbie Fowler (0.52) and, yes, Suárez (0.64).
at Manchester City and Chelsea he was a bit-part actor in a giant theatre ensemble: he got a short scene here, a cameo there. Of those 129 Premier League appearances, 54 were as a substitute.
............................................
Well thats it then...
Welbeck always started every game for us and played 90 minutes in his favoured position.
Yeah Sturridge has a good scoring rate now, after his time at Liverpool and including his time at Bolton.
That was never my argument though, people have been calling Welbeck a poor striker based on his goal return at United.
His time at United was similar to Sturridge's at City and Chelsea. My argument was play Welbeck upfront and you will get a decent return.
As Sturridge did at Bolton and Liverpool.
If you just directly compare their time at United with Sturridges at Chelsea and City, where they experienced similar circumstances, not first choice, striker out of position on the wing. They scored at similar rates.
So either you can't say a player is a poor striker with that kind of return in their circumstances....
Or Sturridge magically turned into a good striker when he went to Liverpool (and Bolton)
The magically turning into a good striker bit seems unlikely admittedly.
Robbing find me a site where I don't have to count up every minute of league football Sturridge played at Chelsea and Welbeck at United and Ill give you the numbers.
Although tbf we should probably include Sturridges time at City unless we exclude Welbeck's break through years as well.
Really? I mean REALLY? You, sir, are an absolute joke. Have We;becks "break through years" include every bloody minute you tard. Fact is Studge has always, and will always, score more than Welbeck whether wide, central or round your house. It's a fact built up through over 100 games. It's not fluke. He scores quicker and it's proven.
You're starting to look a bit silly tbh.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arsenal could have had Borini for £14m
Page 3 of 4
posted on 2/9/14
comment by Robbing_Hoody - Here, have some goals. You don't have to work for them. They're a gift. That's what we do now. (U6374)
posted 3 hours, 57 minutes ago
SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
You don't have to walk me through it as your reference to the past is irrelevant. You could put welbeck through the middle at LFC he still would not be as good at football as Sturridge who has better balance, feet, shot and skills. Nothing else matters and the ascertion that we should compare Welbeck to a past Sturridge is laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well their records when played at big clubs out on the wing are pretty similar....
So you might not like the comparison but its a pretty valid one.
Having a world class striker for the season is worth £20M whether the Carroll transfer happened or not, I was just pointing out we are getting Falcao for a season and its costing us less than Liverpool payed for Carroll.
posted on 2/9/14
Well their records when played at big clubs out on the wing are pretty similar....
--------------
Not really and that doesn't alter the fact Sturridge is better at football.
"Pre-LFC sturridge" is laughable. Surprised he didn't have it on his shirt.
posted on 2/9/14
I dont see how this has turned from a comparison between Welbeck and Borini to include Sturridge.
It's like two Liverpool players ganging up on an Arsenal player. Well when I say players I mean Sturridge and someone who is the PL equivalent of a Sunday league lino....can't even get a game when the other side is short
posted on 2/9/14
Wouldn't Borini have been Evertons 2nd top scorer or something last season?
You really are an oddball with this obsession.
posted on 2/9/14
comment by Robbing_Hoody - Here, have some goals. You don't have to work for them. They're a gift. That's what we do now. (U6374)
posted 50 minutes ago
Well their records when played at big clubs out on the wing are pretty similar....
--------------
Not really and that doesn't alter the fact Sturridge is better at football.
"Pre-LFC sturridge" is laughable. Surprised he didn't have it on his shirt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh yes they did.
Don't think there is too much between them tbh.
Both have similar scoring records out of position, both score when played upfront. Sturridge is a better finisher but Welbeck offers more to the team in terms of workrate and that.
Sturridge pre LFC and playing in his proper position was noting special, probably because he hadn't reall been given a crack at his position... Like Welbeck.
posted on 2/9/14
posted on 2/9/14
Okay then Sturridge was clearly world class prior to his move and his low scoring stats at Chelsea were a lie he was scoring at least a goal a game!!
Chelsea sold him so cheaply because they like Liverpool as well.
posted on 2/9/14
Do you mean when Studge came on as sub 32 times for Chelsea or when he came on as sub 16 times for City?
Sturridge has scord a 0.69 goals per 90 minutes during his entire career. Welbs has not I'm afraid.
posted on 2/9/14
comment by Robbing_Hoody - Here, have some goals. You don't have to work for them. They're a gift. That's what we do now. (U6374)
posted 53 minutes ago
Wouldn't Borini have been Evertons 2nd top scorer or something last season?
You really are an oddball with this obsession.
======
Not sure how he would have been top scorer for us, Martinez has never shown an interest in a flop
posted on 2/9/14
Borini as good as Welbeck. Haha get a grip.
Sturridge has stats of 0.25 goals per chance vs Welbeck who also has around 0.25 goals per chance.
I think Welbeck will do really well for us, good movement and pace in behind with a very creative midfield.
posted on 2/9/14
Do you mean when Studge came on as sub 32 times for Chelsea or when he came on as sub 16 times for City?
......,............................
Well if we're excluding those stats because he got used as a substitute then we are going to struggle to use any stats for Welbeck as a lot if his appearances were as a substitute.
Up to the same age in similar circumstances they had similar scoring ratios, I do apologise for these facts I realise Liverpool fans find them very annoying...
Maybe we can pretend Welbecks scoring ratio is a lot worse than Sturridges in similar circumstances, its not true but it'll make the Liverpool fans feel better
posted on 2/9/14
Sturridge scores more goals per 90 minutes and that's about all that maters here. Simply better at football and it's pretty obvious.
posted on 2/9/14
Sturridge was pretty similar to Welbeck up to his current age.... Maybe Sturridge is the only player in the world that would play better when playing his proper position...
Maybe Sturridge is the only striker in the world who would struggle to score from out wide but score loads up front despite the stats showing Welbeck is quite similar to Sturrudge in that regard...
Maybe the stats lie?
Whatever the reason clearly Sturridge was always incredible and Welbeck always terrible... The stats just lie or something...
posted on 2/9/14
No. There is something you clearly don't understand. Sturridge, whether wide or central, has performed and does perform to a higher level regardless of position. It's a fact, it's not up for debate, he's better at scoring goals. The end.
Sleep well.
posted on 2/9/14
No. There is something you clearly don't understand. Sturridge, whether wide or central, has performed and does perform to a higher level regardless of position. It's a fact, it's not up for debate, he's better at scoring goals.]
..........................................................
TBH at United and Chelsea they were much the same, Sturridge scored at a slightly higher rate and Welbeck offered a little bit more to the team...
Maybe Sturridge just got magically better at Liverpool?
Or, this is a crazy idea, maybe playing a striker in the striker position helps them play better and score more goals....
Admittedly it is just a crazy theory...
Night night.
posted on 3/9/14
If you can show me a statistic that says Welbeck scored a 0.69 goals per 90 mins regardless of position I will concede. But yo can't. Because he didn't. Sturridge scored that many pre-lfc and he scores that now.
you don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid. It's just a fact.
posted on 3/9/14
1 in 4 in comparison to 1 in 4.8 4.9 isn't really much different...
Chelsea
2009–10 13 apps 1 goal
2010–11 13 apps 0 goal
2011–12 30 apps 11 goals
2012–13 7 apps 1 goal.
63 apps, 13 goals.
1 in 4.8 in the league.
Danny Welbeck
2008–09 3 apps 1 goal
2009–10 5 apps 0 goals
2011–12 30 apps 9 goals
2012–13 27 apps 1 goal
2013–14 25 apps 9 goals
2014–15 2 apps 0 goals.
92 League appearances, 20 goals.
1 in 4.6
Soccer Base and Wiki agree on the goals and league appearances...
Like I said maybe Sturridge just magically overnight turned into a better player when he joined Liverpool...
Or maybe actually playing as a striker instead of a winger gave him a chance to score goals, much like Welbeck will do....
posted on 3/9/14
Goals per minute kid. Jesus wept.
posted on 3/9/14
Admittedly Sturridge's 1 in 4.8 is world class whereas Welbeck's 1 in 4.6 is absolutely shocking....
posted on 3/9/14
Are you stupid? Goals. Per. Minute.
posted on 3/9/14
I always look for strikers that get a lower ratio of goals per game at their previous clubs like Sturridge at Chelsea rather than Welbeck at United... as well all know a lower ratio = better
posted on 3/9/14
Stupid it is then. Good stuff.
Faaaaaaaack me. It's pretty simple.
posted on 3/9/14
True, in 129 Premier League matches, Sturridge has scored 54 goals – a bit under one every other game. But the unvarnished statistics mask the real picture: at Manchester City and Chelsea he was a bit-part actor in a giant theatre ensemble: he got a short scene here, a cameo there. Of those 129 Premier League appearances, 54 were as a substitute.
When you look at Sturridge's goal tally per 90 minutes in the Premier League across his career a dramatically different picture emerges. He has scored an average of 0.69 league goals per 90 minutes. That puts him ahead of all the other great Liverpool strikers in the Premier League era, including Michael Owen (0.59 goals every 90 minutes), Fernando Torres (0.53), Robbie Fowler (0.52) and, yes, Suárez (0.64).
posted on 3/9/14
at Manchester City and Chelsea he was a bit-part actor in a giant theatre ensemble: he got a short scene here, a cameo there. Of those 129 Premier League appearances, 54 were as a substitute.
............................................
Well thats it then...
Welbeck always started every game for us and played 90 minutes in his favoured position.
Yeah Sturridge has a good scoring rate now, after his time at Liverpool and including his time at Bolton.
That was never my argument though, people have been calling Welbeck a poor striker based on his goal return at United.
His time at United was similar to Sturridge's at City and Chelsea. My argument was play Welbeck upfront and you will get a decent return.
As Sturridge did at Bolton and Liverpool.
If you just directly compare their time at United with Sturridges at Chelsea and City, where they experienced similar circumstances, not first choice, striker out of position on the wing. They scored at similar rates.
So either you can't say a player is a poor striker with that kind of return in their circumstances....
Or Sturridge magically turned into a good striker when he went to Liverpool (and Bolton)
The magically turning into a good striker bit seems unlikely admittedly.
Robbing find me a site where I don't have to count up every minute of league football Sturridge played at Chelsea and Welbeck at United and Ill give you the numbers.
Although tbf we should probably include Sturridges time at City unless we exclude Welbeck's break through years as well.
posted on 3/9/14
Really? I mean REALLY? You, sir, are an absolute joke. Have We;becks "break through years" include every bloody minute you tard. Fact is Studge has always, and will always, score more than Welbeck whether wide, central or round your house. It's a fact built up through over 100 games. It's not fluke. He scores quicker and it's proven.
You're starting to look a bit silly tbh.
Page 3 of 4